Hi,
Here is the status, and proposed resolution, of all the issues tracked
on github for the WG LC of the revised datastores draft:
https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues
Proposed text has been sent to the WG alias for all the open issues
except the move to the RFC 2119 language and the updated introduction.
I think that these 2 changes would be best be reviewed once all of WG
feedback has been incorporated into the draft and a new version posted
for the WG to verify that all concerns have been addressed.
#1 Define "inactive configuration"
Resolution: Proposal is that this issue is also covered by #5.
#2 Emphasize that the schema for all conventional datastores must be the
same
Resolution: Proposed text accepted, draft updated, issue closed.
#3 Enhance description of intended datastore
Resolution: Proposed text sent to WG, draft will be updated.
#4 Make convention datastores a subsection of conventional
Resolution: Change accepted, draft updated, issue closed.
#5 Provide a better introduction to justify the architecture
Resolution: Change accepted, draft will be updated.
#6 Describe validation
Resolution: Proposed text defining <running> sent to WG, draft will be
updated.
#7 Other cosmetic improvements proposed by Phil
Resolution: Change accepted, draft updated, issue closed.
#8 Allow the system to add configuration to <running>
Resolution: No change to the draft, issue will be closed.
#9 Make it clear that validation of intended includes default values
Resolution: Covered by propose text for issue #3, issue will be closed.
#10 Is it allowed to violate uniqueness of key values?
Resolution: Proposed text sent to WG, draft will be updated.
#11 actions and rpcs should be allowed to include other datastores in
their XPath evaluation.
Resolution: Out of scope, issue will be closed.
#12 Appendix minor comments
Resolution: Change accepted, draft updated, issue closed.
#13 Does the NMDA architecture need to update 7950?
Resolution: Yes, document updated, issue closed.
#14 Does the NMDA architecture need to use RFC 2119 language?
Resolution: Yes, document will be updated.
#15 How can a client determine that a module is NMDA compatible?
Resolution: No change required, issue will be closed.
#16 Remove "commonly" from datastore definition sentences.
Resolution: New. Currently plan to accept the proposed change.
Thanks,
Rob
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
