On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:24:17AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Except that we never use that term. > > It is always called operational datastore when we talk about it in > meetings. > > Hence, the new NMDA terms section: > > > > ** NMDA Terms > > > > The following terms are defined in the > > Network Management Datastore Architecture > > (NMDA) ^I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores^. > > and are not redefined here: > > > > - configuration > > - conventional configuration datastore (also called conventional > datastore) > > - datastore > > - operational state > > - operational state datastore (also called operational datastore) > > > > IMO these alternates should be put in the RD draft since they reflect the > > terms we actually use. > > > > I know that we tend to be sloppy in meetings and often in emails but > in written RFCs (specifications) I would personally prefer to use a > single term. > So change it in the RD draft to the term we actually use "operational datastore". > > > I think the first sentence refers to the temporary non-NMDA module. > > > > NEW: > > > > (a) Modules that require immediate support for the NMDA features > > SHOULD be structured for NMDA. A temporary non-NMDA version of these > > models SHOULD exist, either an > > existing model or a model created either by hand or with > > suitable tools that mirror the current modeling strategies. > > I am not sure about the second SHOULD. I think the temporary non-NMDA > version is more a MAY than a SHOULD. > > OK -- changed 2nd SHOULD to MAY > /js > Andy > > -- > 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
