On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
> > > On 9 Jan 2017, at 13:38, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On January 9, 2017 7:25:24 AM Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >> > >> The current document involves quite a lot of hand-waving, and that's > why I was also reluctant to accept it as a WG standard-track deliverable. > > > I do not agree with this hand-waving assessment. What are the show-shoppers? I agree the draft is light on use-cases. There are no standard mechanisms that cause <running> to be different from <intended>, so I would agree the intended datastore needs a lot more standards support before it is useful. > > IMO I think we should do and document the work and then, once the is > general agreement, worry about number and publication status of documents. > > I agree, but we have to accept it will take some time. The problem I see > is that quite a few people already work with the solution. > > The solutions I've seen were not very good, so they need a lot of work. I expect that the operational datastore will be more widely implemented than any of the others. Designing a <get> replacement is not that difficult. Lada > Andy > > > > > Lou > > > > > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
