On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:38:11AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Kent, > > On 06/10/2015 01:40, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > >This issue appears to have become more like issue #5 – should we mark > >this one a duplicate of the other? > > I suggest that we can just finalize on the text being discussed to > replace 1.D and then resolve issue #1. > > Jason had proposed this text: > > When the configuration change for any intended configuration node has > been successfully applied to the system (e.g. not failed, nor deferred > due to absent hardware) then the existence and value of the applied > equivalent of the node (whether that be a corresponding node in the data > model, an attribute associated with the intended config node, the > configuration node read from a different datastore or context, etc) must > match the intended configuration node.
I have no clue what "an attribute associated with the intended config node" or "the configuration node read from a different datastore or context" or "etc". means. What exactly is an "applied equivalent of the node"? > Or perhaps this slightly briefer alternative is better?: > > D. When the configuration change for any intended > configuration node has been successfully applied to the > system (e.g. not failed, nor deferred due to absent hardware) > then the existence and value of the corresponding, possibly > notional, applied configuration node must match the intended > configuration node. What is the purpose of the phrase "possibly notional"? /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/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
