From the interim meeting two weeks ago, it was clarified that the
schema of the intended configuration nodes are expected to be the same
as the schema of the applied configuration nodes so that clients can
easily relate between the two.
I think that the requirement text for 1.C and the proposed updated text
for 1.D makes this reasonable clear.
Hence, is issue 5 now at the state where is can be closed as not being a
requirement? Or is there something further that needs to be discussed
first?
Thanks,
Rob
On 30/09/2015 16:44, Kent Watsen wrote:
It's time to tackle another issue, just before tomorrow's meeting, and
this time I'm picking a hard one:
https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/5
Already Carl, Mahesh, Einar, and Andy have posted 18 comments on the
GitHub issue tracker. Please first read the comments posted there
and then continue the discussion here on the mailing list (not on the
GitHub issue tracker).
Note that this issue is closely tied to the definition of "applied
configuration", which is exactly what issue #4 regards
(https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/4), for which Mahesh
and Einar have posted comments on already. As these two issues (#4
and #5) are so highly related, I'm going to simultaneously open the
other issue for discussion now as well.
Thanks,
Kent
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
