Hi Jason, From: netmod <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 6:22 AM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [netmod] nmda-guidelines-01: value space for config vs state
Hi all, A note in Rob Wilton’s presentation today in rtgwg mentioned something about consistency in the value space for config vs state leafs. The NMDA approach results in the same leaf for both config & state in many cases (at least for the cases where the separate config & state leafs were only there to represent intended vs applied config). But aren’t there some cases where the value space for state will be different than the value space for config ? I’m thinking of the basic admin/oper state for interfaces for example where config may allow enable/disable but state may have additional values like ‘testing’. If the config & state value spaces aren’t 100% the same, are module designers recommended to create a separate state leaf ? In this particular example, the leaf you are describing would be read-only system state as opposed to applied state. If there were such a leaf that could take on a wider range of values of applied state values than the intended state, I’d expect the value space would need to be the superset. Thanks, Acee Rgds, Jason
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
