>> I guess the NMDA transition plan to move the child nodes to a config=true >> node >> name /restconf that has only config=false nodes in it. This seems quite >> disruptive >> and not a productive use of engineering resources, or support and customer >> re-training. > > I agree with you. We've said that it is ok to have pure config false > trees, if it makes sense for what we're trying to model. > > The only "issue" with the tree above is that its top-level node's name > contains the word "state".
/netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates. Particularly, these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the opstate value for configured nodes. These modules have the misfortune of having "-state" in their name, but they're otherwise fine. K. // contributor _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
