Hi Kent,
On 06/01/2016 16:43, Kent Watsen wrote:
[As a contributor]
Gert> If a client is has the intention to update/change a config, its
decision is based on the present state of the configuration when the
decision is taken. Ideally the present configuration is in a state
where intended == applied config, so there is stable ground upon which
a change is applied. However there is also the case where intended !=
applied config and there are two reasons for that.
a)a previous intended config is in the process of being applied
b)a previous configuration failed due to an error
[KENT] or due to missing hardware, right? Regardless, I don’t think
this thread has bearing of the requirements draft. Note that I
removed the *-on-error terms from the Terminology section in -02 by
instead rewording requirement 2-C, which was the only place they were
being referenced before and the reference was merely suggestive (not
normative). Can we leave it to the solution drafts to sort out?
Yes, deferring this issue to the solutions draft works for me.
I don't think that it will have any bearing on the discussion of the
overall solution approach.
Thanks,
Rob
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
