On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote:
> Acee, > > I personally was assuming we'd follow 3, but I'd like to understand > the implication of 2 as I'm not sure I really understand what you're > thinking here. Can you elaborate what you're thinking here? > > Thanks, > > Lou > ..... > > 3. #2 plus collapse the config (read-write) and system-state > > (read-only) into common containers. No more branching of > > <model-name>-config and <model-name>-state at the top level of the model. > >..... I would really like to understand what problem (3) is supposed to solve. Most of the foo-state variables are for monitoring. This information is useful even if the server uses proprietary configuration mechanisms. (e.g., the way the SNMP world has worked for 30 years) If you forbid separate monitoring subtrees and force the data to be co-located with configuration, that means the standard monitoring will not be supported unless the standard configuration is also supported. Why is that progress? Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
