|
See below! On 2017-09-14 16:32, Martin Bjorklund
wrote:
BALAZS: I strongly disagree. I know others are also adding stuff to running as well.Hi Balazs, Thanks for your review. Comments inline.Balazs Lengyel <[email protected]> wrote:Hello, Reading the draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 some comments: General) The system often adds data to the <running> or <intended> datastore already not just to <operational>: e.g. UC1: I have a server configured in running. I need to bind it to an ip-address. The ip-address might be the local loopback address, however if that is only added to <operational>, validation will fail indicating that the server is bound to a non-existent address. How to handle this? UC2: I have a set of capabilities set by the system e.g. supported-reporting-intervals. I need to configure a job that MUST use one of these intervals. If the supported-reporting-intervals are only added to <operational> I can not validate the selected-interval in my configured job. My proposal is to allow the system to add data to running as well. Actually I think that is a more relevant case then adding configuration just to <operation>.I think the consensus is that in general it is a bad idea if servers (spontaneously) add data to <running>. However, there is nothing in the new or old architectures that prohibits this. IMHO the above use cases are real and used and actually important for us. I would like to see them included in some way. regards Balazs -- Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. Senior Specialist Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: [email protected] |
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
