On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:49:48AM +0100, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > Hello Jurgen, > > IMHO once we know whether the data is config=false or true and know the > datastores the server supports the datastore the instance data is relevant > to is fixed. One exception is the possible loading of dynamic datastores. > However as I do not have a use-case for these and we do not have any > dynamic datastores defined, IMHO we can leave the usage of these > datastores out of scope. If I added the following paragraphs would that > help? > > "If the instance data specifies config false (state data) and the server > support the operational datastore, the instance data documents the > operational datastore. If the operational datastore is not supported the > data documents additional state data that is stored outside the > configuration datastores. The instance data MAY be used to load the > relevant datastore or it MAY just be used to document its content.
Having to guess the datastore from the instance data feels wrong to me. It is not robust. > If the instance data specifies config true (configuration data) the > instance data documents the running datastore. The instance data MAY be > used to load the running datastore or it MAY just be used to document its > content. While the instance data format MAY be used to load other e.g. > dynamic datastores that is out of scope for this specification." > > Also further clarification may be provided for each use-case in the > relevant document. Why not make the data format robust? What speaks against indicating explicitly to which datastore data belongs? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod