Benoit Claise <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Martin, >> Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Martin, >>> >>> Removed some extra ones on which we agree. >>> See in line. >>>>>>> - Terminology: >>>>>>> The following terms are defined in [RFC6241 >>>>>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241>]: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o configuration datastore: a configuration datastore is an >>>>>>> instantiated data tree with configuration data >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o datastore: an instantiated data tree >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RFC6241 has different definition for "configuration datastore" and >>>>>>> "datastore". >>>>>>> I would just provide the pointer to the RFC 6241 definitions. >>>>>>> If you intend to provide an adapted definition for the YANG mappings, >>>>>>> then you should say so. >>>>>> How about: >>>>>> >>>>>> OLD: >>>>>> >>>>>> o configuration datastore: a configuration datastore is an >>>>>> instantiated data tree with configuration data >>>>>> >>>>>> o datastore: an instantiated data tree >>>>>> >>>>>> NEW: >>>>>> >>>>>> o configuration datastore: When modelled with YANG, a >>>>>> configuration >>>>>> datastore is an instantiated data tree with configuration data >>>>>> >>>>>> o datastore: When modelled with YANG, an instantiated data tree >>>>>> >>>>> This issue is with "The following terms are defined in [RFC6241]", but >>>>> you re-define those terms. >> I don't think it is correct to say that we "re-define" these terms. >> It sounds like we give the terms a different meaning. > Playing with words? :-) >> I agree that >> the OLD text gave that impression, but I think the NEW proposed text >> fixes this. > This does not work. > > Reading the terminology ... > > The following terms are defined in [RFC6241 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241>]: > > o configuration datastore: ... > > o datastore: ... > > ... I will not even bother reading the definitions, because I know them > from 6241. > Doing this, I will not spot the subtle "different meaning" you inserted > in the definitions.
I think it would be useful to state what "configuration data" mean in YANG context: it is a subtree of the main data tree containing only instances of "config true" data nodes. I don't think the definition inherited from 6241 is useful, in fact I am not even sure it is correct. The problem I have with the refined definitions of "datastore" and "configuration datastore" is the cabbalistic word "instantiated". I think it should be explained or removed. As a matter of fact, the meaning of "instantiate" in the definition of "uses" is clearly different. Lada > > Regards, Benoit >> >> The terms are defined in 6241, and they keep their meaning. We >> clarify the meaning of two of the terms in a YANG context. >> >>>>> So give a warning about the redefinition to the readers. >>>> Yes, that's what my proposed text does. It says that "datastore" is >>>> defined in 6241, and when YANG is used, it means the instantiated data >>>> tree. >>> OLD: >>> >>> The following terms are defined in [RFC6241 >>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241>]: >>> >>> NEW: >>> >>> The following terms are defined in [RFC6241 >>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241>], but re-defined in this >>> document in YANG context: >> >> /martin >> . >> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
