Re: [netmod] [Netconf] NMDA comments

Hi Balazs, > General: It should be more clearly describe how legacy devices that do > not wish to support NMDA should behave. They still need part of the > operational datastore, but might not (will probably not) have a separate > operational state for configuration from running/intended.

Re: [netmod] Questions on NMDA and "merged config and state"

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:06:23AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > So you are saying there is no such thing as an NMDA-compliant server. > > There are protocols that may use specific

Re: [netmod] Questions on NMDA and "merged config and state"

Maybe a stupid question from my side (I'm not involved in the NMDA work) but is there some kind of consensus on what is proposed in this draft RFC or are we miles away from such a consensus? Since this is linked to how a server has to handle state in the proposed merging of config and state

Re: [netmod] Questions on NMDA and "merged config and state"

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:59:58AM +, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: > > Just to get confirmation on my assumptions: > > In section

Re: [netmod] Questions on NMDA and "merged config and state"

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:06:23AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > So you are saying there is no such thing as an NMDA-compliant server. > There are protocols that may use specific datastores in various ways. > Different protocols can have different behavior for the same datastore. > Sounds very