On 01/10/2015 20:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
To clarify what I failed to eloquently express in the interim meeting.
I propose changing the text for requirement 1.D. This also removes the
need to define what fully synchronized means.
Old text for 1.D
D. For asynchronous systems, when fully synchronized, the data
in the applied configuration is the same as the data in the
intended configuration.
Proposed text for 1.D:
D. When the configuration change for any intended
configuration leaf has been successfully applied to the
system (i.e. not failed, nor deferred due to absent hardware)
then the existence and value of the corresponding applied
configuration leaf must match the intended configuration
leaf.
I think this text is better. I suggest s/leaf/node/ in order to cover
also lists, leaf-lists, and p-containers.
Agreed. I had originally written it using node but changed it to leaf
to because of the the text for 1.C:
C. The data model for the applied configuration is the same as
the data model for the intended configuration (same leaves)
Thanks,
Rob
/martin
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
