On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:09:10PM +0000, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Internal implementation framework is always controversial, hard to > converge, usually ending up with a document (if completed) that is > too big and difficult to read.
Having a framework how different datastores conceptually fit together is essential for getting implementations that behave in a predictable manner. I am not talking about an implementation framework. As long as people use key terms with different meanings, I have little hope that this leads to interoperable behavior. > The draft-schoenw-netmod-revised-datastores-00 is on the architectural > framework for datastores as they are used by network management protocols. > IMHO, how data stores are used are internal to the end points. I think a client needs to know what it means to modify a certain datastore. A client needs to know what validation means. If people code against <running>, <indented>, <applied>, <ephemeral> (and there are more suggested) and it is undefined how things conceptually relate to each other and interact with each other, then I have my doubts this will lead to interoperability since systems likely expose rather different behavior. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
