Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On 08/02/2016 14:38, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 05/02/2016 17:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:22:03PM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote: > >>>> 2. Personally, for a datastore solution, I would prefer if the new > >>>> datastore was for the intended configuration, and that the applied > >>>> configuration was stored in the same datastore (running?) as all the > >>>> rest of the operational state. > >>> The running datastore is a configuration datastore, it does not hold > >>> operational state. > >> OK. Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't realised that the > >> definition of datastores only applies to configuration and not to > >> state! > > No, this is not correct. RFC 6241 defines both "datastore" and > > "configuration datastore". However, "running" is a "configuration > > datastore". > OK. RFC 6241 defines terminology for "datastore", but the body of the > text only ever seems to ever use the term datastore in the context of > a "configuration datastore". > > Hence please can you clarify, does the operational state live in a non > configuration datastore, and if so which one?
Yes, but unfortunately it doesn't have a name, and the only way to get it with current NETCONF is to do a <get>, which also returns the running configuration. > Otherwise, are there > any other uses of non-configuration datastores by NETCONF? No, not currently. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
