On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:49:25AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:18:10AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:59:58AM +0000, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - > > > > BE/Antwerp) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Just to get confirmation on my assumptions: > > > > > > > > > > In section 4.7.3 the origin metadata does not include 'running' as > > origin > > > > > but only 'intended'. So it seems to be mandatory for a NC server to > > > > support > > > > > the intended datastore? > > > > > > > > If your server does not support templates or inactive configuration or > > > > the like, then intended is just an alias for running. > > > > > > IMO this is not correct. > > > There are no standards at all to define these things. > > > Our server supports an implementation of config templates that expands > > the > > > template when it is first created. A different proprietary > > implementation > > > MAY choose > > > to expand templates in some other way. Since there are no standards for > > > this purpose, > > > any proprietary implementation decision is valid. > > > > So your implementation allows a client to write something to <running> > > that transforms into something different at the time it is written (or > > committed I assume)? Anyway, my statement was: > > > > If your server does not support templates or inactive configuration or > > the like, then intended is just an alias for running. > > > > So it does not apply to your implementation. > > > > > > IMO the concept of NMDA conformance is still very under-specified.
Seems you are changing topic. > There should be a clear statement in RFC 2119 terms for the exact > datastores that are considered standard datastores. This needs to > be 100% backward compatible with RFC 7950 and RFC 6241 requirements > for the 3 traditional datastores. The protocols (with their various capabilities) expose different sets of datastores. I agree, the protocol documents should state clearly what is required to expose for the different protocols and what is optional to expose. > I don't care if new datastore usage is unbounded, as long as the > client developer knows what to expect from an NMDA-compliant server. > > The WG needs to deliberately (not haphazardly) determine the > interoperability boundaries. Yes, but it is not this WG but the other WG I think. /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
