Maybe we’re coming down to a definition of “requirement” here. But the issue I raised can be summarized as follows:
“”” The assumption of a 1:1 mapping ignores situations where a change to an intended configuration leaf value may result in several instances of applied configuration leaf values (operational state) to be updated in the backend framework across several subsystems. “”" My issue is that the requirement seems to ignore the situations and my suggestion is to relax the requirement. I don’t believe 1.C addresses the actual concern with the requirement. > On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:14 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I believe that you are correct, it seems that we've doubled-down on 1C and so > #5 should now be marked as DEAD. > > This action will be taken if no objection is made before tomorrow's interim. > > Thanks, > Kent > > > From: Robert Wilton <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 9:29 AM > To: Kent Watsen <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #5: Support for situations when structure > of intended configuration is not the same as applied > > From the interim meeting two weeks ago, it was clarified that the schema of > the intended configuration nodes are expected to be the same as the schema of > the applied configuration nodes so that clients can easily relate between the > two. > > I think that the requirement text for 1.C and the proposed updated text for > 1.D makes this reasonable clear. > > Hence, is issue 5 now at the state where is can be closed as not being a > requirement? Or is there something further that needs to be discussed first? > > Thanks, > Rob > > > On 30/09/2015 16:44, Kent Watsen wrote: >> >> It's time to tackle another issue, just before tomorrow's meeting, and this >> time I'm picking a hard one: >> >> https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/5 >> >> Already Carl, Mahesh, Einar, and Andy have posted 18 comments on the GitHub >> issue tracker. Please first read the comments posted there and then >> continue the discussion here on the mailing list (not on the GitHub issue >> tracker). >> >> Note that this issue is closely tied to the definition of "applied >> configuration", which is exactly what issue #4 regards >> (https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/4), for which Mahesh and >> Einar have posted comments on already. As these two issues (#4 and #5) are >> so highly related, I'm going to simultaneously open the other issue for >> discussion now as well. >> >> Thanks, >> Kent >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> >> [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
