> On 16 Oct 2015, at 13:17, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > 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"?
An entity that's being managed and runs the server. > >> 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. Right, but with your definition of "server" there is no guarantee that, say, if "mtu" on an interface has a default value and no value is configured, then the default value is really used - MTU has nothing to do with server operation. Lada > > > /martin -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
