On 15/01/2016 20:50, Gert Grammel wrote:
As well as rollback-on-error, synchronous operations can still be continue-on-error or stop-on-error.For 2B, I agree changing MAY to SHOULD but we should broaden this to apply to synchronous servers as well. Even though a config edit operation is synchronous it could still fail to be applied for some leaves, and hence the intended and applied leaves could be out of step. Hence I propose the following change: Before: B. Servers that support asynchronous configuration operations MAY also provide a verify operation that a client can request from the server to return information regarding the difference between the intended and applied configurations.Gert> as per definition of synchronous, the confirmation has to indicate that the intended config has been applied or has been failed. I therefore like to keep the current text suggesting to change the existing text slightly (SHOULD instead of MAY):
Under both of these semantics it is possible for the system to be left in a state where some of the applied config leaves do not match the intended config leaves. The "verify operation" is useful in this scenario, hence why I still think that it would be better to remove the condition tying the requirement to only asynchronous operations. It is just a generally useful operation for opstate compliant devices.
Rob _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
