Hi,
During the meeting in Chicago, the NMDA authors took an action to
propose some text for S4.23. After a little review, the following
emerged. Yes, it's short, but was anything left anything out?
=====START=====
4.23 Operational Data
Operational data includes both config "false" nodes as well as,
on servers supporting <operational> [draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores],
the applied value of config "true" nodes.
YANG modules SHOULD be designed assuming they will be used on
servers supporting <operational>. With this in mind, YANG
modules SHOULD define config "false" wherever they make sense
to the data model. Config "false" nodes SHOULD NOT be defined
to provide the operational value for configuration nodes,
except when the value space of a configured and operational
values may differ, in which case a distinct config "false"
node SHOULD be defined to hold the operational value for the
configured node.
=====STOP=====
One question that came up is if "operational data" is a well-defined
term. This string appears 10 times in rfc6087bis. Most interestingly,
appendix Section A.8. (v05 to v06) includes this line item:
Changed term "operational state" to "operational data"
So it seems to be deliberate...
Kent // contributor
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
