On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:00:05AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Reinaldo Penno <[email protected]> wrote: > > are we taking this approach only for I2RS or this will be our preferred > > solution from now on? > > > > Meaning, every time when a new protocol/WG has certain valid requirements > > we will create a new datastore for them? > > > Good question. > It is a lot more work to add a new datastore than to tag data as ephemeral > in the existing "running" datastore -- if the only difference is no > non-volatile support. > I think the I2RS WG has to agree on those details first.
Part of the discussion at the recent netmod session and post-session hallway discussion provided some suggestion there may be other users desiring ephemeral characteristics. If this is the case, providing for a mechanism for tagging ephemeral state seems to be generally useful. One of the open questions for the more general mechanism is whether ephemeral state should be in a separate data store. While I think there is good cause for I2RS to desire this, from the general standpoint it may also simplify implementations to keep ephemeral configuration segregated from static configuration. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
