On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:36:04AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > I was surprised at the interim that every config=true schema node could > apply to running config or ephemeral data, and it is always an operator > decision as to which instances go in which datastore. This seems like a > vendor decision first.
As I keep mentioning, fully disjoint data models from local config are likely. That case is easy. Models that augment or use information in local/running config have been proposed and defining their semantics are where we spent a lot of time. If the WG can't manage to converge on the details of such interaction, it may be simpler to say we're going to refuse to solve it and simple declare such interactions out of scope. This would leave us with *only* disjoint models, although with the possibility of using elements from config models, e.g. groupings. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
