Hi, This draft seems to propose very specific solutions, not requirements.
This text is in the section explaining why an ephemeral datastore won't work: The most obvious disadvantage of such a fully separate datastore is that interaction with the network element's operational or configuration state becomes significantly more difficult. I don't see any evidence or examples in the draft to support this claim. The requirements do not make it clear how a YANG module is implemented by I2RS vs. implemented by NETCONF or RESTCONF. It is not clear at all how YANG data-def-stmts are handled correctly by each protocol. Perhaps you can provide some data model examples. Andy On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:52 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System Working > Group of the IETF. > > Title : I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements > Authors : Jeff Haas > Susan Hares > Filename : draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-00.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 2015-06-23 > > Abstract: > This document covers requests to the netmod and netconf Working > Groups for functionality to support the ephemeral state requirements > to implement the I2RS architecture. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-00 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
