On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:
> > > >> /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. > > OK -- good. I think another sentence needs to be added. NMDA compatibility conversion MAY be deferred if the module does not contain any configuration datastore objects. > > 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). > > So a data node naming convention is needed? And a module naming convention? We need a rule that says the suffix "-state" is reserved for NMDA compatibility so module names and data nodes SHOULD NOT be named with an identifier that ends in this suffix. (Automation tools like deterministic rules, not naming conventions. Here is an example why... there are always exceptions that do not follow the conventions. Always people who are unaware of the conventions.) > > K. > > > > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
