Hi - >From: Robert Wilton <[email protected]> >Sent: Oct 1, 2015 10:01 AM >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Subject: [netmod] opstate-reqs issue #1 - Define/Clarify "fully synchronized" >in "Requirement 1.D" > >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.
Are "not failed" and "deferred due to absent hardware" the *only* possibilities? If not, then the "i.e." needs to be replaced with an "e.g." Randy _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
