On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 09:41:09PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > I would hope that we have a single model for NETCONF and I2RS or at least a > core OSPF model that contains the large intersection.
That's why option 4 was suggested. Given that you now have a body of work representing config for OSPF and knowing that I2RS may want to add state into it, please take a look the option 4 discussion and see if it's a good fit. A reminder to the wider WG: "Option 4" was simply the line of discussion from the netmod interim. As seen in its thread it's either not fully explained well or there's still confusion among the interim participants what it actually means. It's not settled that this is what we'll be doing, but it is currently the method that has received the most discussion. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
