Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> writes: > > ... > > > > >> I am also wondering why we use device and server. It seems we use > >> these terms interchangeably. If so, for clarity, I would suggest to > >> use a single term, that is s/device/server > > > > Ok, fixed. > > > >> / and perhaps explicitly > >> state that unless stated otherwise server means a server providing > >> access to a YANG defined data tree. > > > > Yes this makes sense. But then I guess we shouldn't import client and > > server from 6241. (And most other documents (restconf etc) should > > probably import these terms from ths document). See also below. > > > >> * p12/p13 > >> > >> We import 7 terms from RFC 6241. Would it make sense to copy the > >> necessary text in order to avoid a too strict binding to RFC 6241? > >> In particular, 'client' and 'server' means NETCONF client and server > >> if we import from RFC 6241 but this may be a bit narrow given that > >> we have RESTCONF as well. In an ideal world, we would factor out > >> core architectural concepts but the best we can do is likely to > >> define core concepts inline, pointing out where they are the same. > >> The idea is to loosen the coupling to RFC 6241. Example: > >> > >> OLD > >> > >> o datastore: an instantiated data tree > >> > >> NEW > >> > >> o datastore: A conceptual place to store and access information. > >> A datastore might be implemented, for example, using files, a > >> database, flash memory locations, or combinations thereof. > >> [Matches the definition in RFC 6241.] > > > > To start with, I think we should define client and server more > > generically than just NETCONF: > > > > server: An entity that provides access to YANG-defined data to a > > client, over some network management protocol. > > But then perhaps "device" is a broader term in the sense that the > server is just > a software component running in a device.
So how do you define "device"? > For example, it is the device that is required to operationally use > default values of parameters that are not present in the > configuration. Replacing "device" with "server" here IMO means something The text was actually already in RFC 6020: When the default value is in use, the server MUST operationally behave as if the leaf was present in the data tree with the default value as its value. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
