>> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates. Particularly, >> these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the opstate >> value for configured nodes. These modules have the misfortune of >> having "-state" in their name, but they're otherwise fine. > > > This contradicts some details we have been told about NMDA > > 1) the transition guidelines say otherwise > > New modules and modules that are not concerned with the > operational state of configuration information SHOULD > immediately be structured to be NMDA-compatible
Yes, I'm suggesting we give ourselves some leeway, by taking advantage of the SHOULD keyword above and defer updating these two modules to when it makes more sense to do so. > 2) RD defines operational state to include config=false nodes > such as counters, so these modules are properly named. module-name == top-level node name. Either way, my point is that the -state tree in these modules is not trying to provide the opstate value for configured nodes (i.e. applied configuration). K. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
