> On Oct 3, 2019, at 11:30 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> >> Sent: 03 October 2019 16:16 >> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> >> Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt >> >> [resending to include list cc] >> >>> On Oct 3, 2019, at 5:45 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> As discussed offline, you have left out the "masked-tag" container in >> the "modules-tags-state" module. >> >> One might read this as an objection that was discussed offline, but I >> don't think you are objecting, you're just stating what happened, correct? > > Correct, not objecting, although I might be about to 😉 > > Generally, I think that is what is available in "module-tags-state" should be > directly equivalent to what is available in the operational datastore for > servers that support NMDA.
So is this how we're supposed to construct these deprecated state modules, just copy all config true and config false nodes into a new module and mark them all config false? If so fine. I will do that. Thanks, Chris.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
