Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> /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. > > > > > > > > > This contradicts some details we have been told about NMDA > > > > > > 1) the transition guidelines say otherwise > > > > > > New modules and modules that are not concerned with the > > > operational state of configuration information SHOULD > > > immediately be structured to be NMDA-compatible > > > > Yes, I'm suggesting we give ourselves some leeway, by taking > > advantage of the SHOULD keyword above and defer updating these > > two modules to when it makes more sense to do so. > > > > > > > > OK -- good. > > I think another sentence needs to be added. > > > > > > NMDA compatibility conversion MAY be deferred if the module > > does not contain any configuration datastore objects. > I agree.
+1 > > > 2) RD defines operational state to include config=false nodes > > > such as counters, so these modules are properly named. > > > > module-name == top-level node name. Either way, my point is that > > the -state tree in these modules is not trying to provide the > > opstate value for configured nodes (i.e. applied configuration). > > > > > > So a data node naming convention is needed? > > And a module naming convention? > > > > We need a rule that says the suffix "-state" is reserved for NMDA > > compatibility > > so module names and data nodes SHOULD NOT be named with an identifier > > that > > ends in this suffix. > Also agree. -1 There are cases where a -state suffix is natural, e.g. in ietf-hardware we have admin-state, oper-state, usage-state etc. I prefer to have a recommendation that generated modules and top-level nodes are called ...-state, but that should not be a reason for making -state illegal in general. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
