Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > To clarify what I failed to eloquently express in the interim meeting. > > I propose changing the text for requirement 1.D. This also removes the > need to define what fully synchronized means. > > > Old text for 1.D > D. For asynchronous systems, when fully synchronized, the data > in the applied configuration is the same as the data in the > intended configuration. > > > Proposed text for 1.D: > D. When the configuration change for any intended > configuration leaf has been successfully applied to the > system (i.e. not failed, nor deferred due to absent hardware) > then the existence and value of the corresponding applied > configuration leaf must match the intended configuration > leaf.
I think this text is better. I suggest s/leaf/node/ in order to cover also lists, leaf-lists, and p-containers. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
