[As a contributor] This message regards the value of the "resolve-system” parameter defined in the latest “with-system” draft.
The "resolve-system” parameter is defined in its own optional-to-implement module. The question is if the WG believes the parameter is valuable or if the module should be removed from the draft before adoption call? The "resolve-system” parameter is a convenience function, enabling clients to NOT have “manually” copy/paste referenced system-defined nodes into <running>. Instead, by including this parameter in <edit-config>, <commit>, or equivalents, the client requests the server to itself copy/paste the missing system nodes into <running>. It is true that this work began with a goal of never having to copy/paste system-defined nodes into <running>. The concern wasn’t about *how* the referenced system-defined nodes came to be in <running>, but *if* they needed to be in <running> at all. But now that the current draft says referenced system-nodes MUST be in <running>, the only remaining question regards *how* they came to be in <running>. Yes, there is convenience in using the “resolve-system” parameter, but there is also some implementation complexity. Ultimately, the question is, is the convenience worth the complexity? Thoughts? Thanks, Kent _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
