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