It’s true that the draft is largely centered around the intended/applied config
notion, but not exclusively. Specifically, 4-B has "Ability to map intended
config nodes to associated derived state nodes". I think that this might be
the only exclusion though and, if it weren’t for it I would’ve used your title
suggestion from the LC review. Should one requirement have such influence
over the title is the question. I was trying to be fair to it, but maybe it's
going too far.
Regarding visibility and control, I was attempting to use common words (not
normative terms) here. My intent for them is something along the lines of:
visibility: read/understand
control: write/orchestrate
Thanks,
Kent
On 1/6/16, 1:30 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>Acee,
>
>for me the document is centered around the notion of intended /
>applied config:
>
>#1 is clearly about intended/applied cfg
>
>#2 is about intended/applied cfg (since sync config operations is
> largely defined using intended/applied cfg)
>
>#3 is about the relationship of applied config and derived state
>
>#4 is about the relationship of intended / applied config and
> operational state
>
>I find "Enhanced Operational State Visibility and Control" abstract
>and somewhat confusing (what is visibility? what is control?).
>
>/js
>
>On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 08:08:29PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> Juergen,
>>
>> As another non-author, I disagree with this characterization of the draft.
>> The intended/applied configuration is an important requirement but
>> certainly not the only one precisely articulated in the draft.
>>
>> Acee
>>
>> On 1/5/16, 3:02 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
>> <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of
>> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 10:29:54PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This update addresses comments received during the Last Call.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I not entirely happy with the new title:
>> >
>> > Terminology and Requirements for Enhanced
>> > Operational State Visibility and Control
>> >
>> >Since the key contribution is the concept of intended configuration
>> >and applied configuration, why not put these terms into the title
>> >instead of "Enhanced Operational State Visibility and Control", which
>> >is somewhat vague? What about this proposal:
>> >
>> > Terminology and Requirements for Distinguishing
>> > Intended and Applied Configuration
>> >
>> >/js
>> >
>> >--
>> >Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> >Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> >Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >netmod mailing list
>> >netmod@ietf.org
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
>
>--
>Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
