> On 12 Jan 2016, at 16:38, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Lada, >>> On 08 Jan 2016, at 16:20, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Lada, >>> >>> On 08/01/2016 12:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>> Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Hi Lada, >>>>> >>>>> I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is being asked for >>>>> here to allow both the user and system to easily relate between what the >>>>> operator desires and what configuration the system is actually using, >>>> In a way, system-controlled interfaces are default entries in the >>>> interface list - and the system can certainly be using interfaces with >>>> no configuration installed by NETCONF/RESTCONF clients. >>>> >>>>> so I wouldn't be particularly keen on loosening this requirement. >>>> OK, but then IMO this intended-applied dualism is of limited >>>> utility. For many systems or services, asynchronicity is not an option, >>>> or isn't important. >>> I don't really agree. I think that this is plausibly important to anyone >>> who wants to manage network devices in an automated way. >> I am currently working with my colleagues on two use cases: >> >> 1. RESTCONF interface to a DNS server that will cover the daemon >> configuration, policies for zone signing, and zone provisioning. >> >> 2. RESTCONF interface to an OpenWRT-based router. >> >> For neither of them applied configuration seems to add any value. >> > Fair enough. However, it doesn't entail that the opstate has no value for > anybody. > Some operators have spoken loud and clear.
Sure, what I wrote was: For many systems or services, asynchronicity is not an option, or isn't important. Lada > > Regards, Benoit > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
