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
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to