Re: [OPS-AREA] RE: [OPS-NM] Comments on XSDMI BoF proposal

[Andy Bierman <ietf at andybierman.com>]

Jon Saperia wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, lets see what Dave says.  If it is as you 
> say, then I would say what is the justification for introducing 
> duplication of information?

What duplication are you talking about?

BTW, I do not agree with the RFC 4741 definition of config
because it is incomplete.

I use a very NETCONF-centric definition, with 3 states:

  config: Persistent Configuration
          * saved in NV-storage
          * included in <get-config>, <edit-config>, <copy-config>

  tconfig: Transient Configuration (e.g., per-session configuration)
          * not saved in NV-storage
          * included in <get-config>, <edit-config>, <copy-config>

  state: Non-Configuration Data
          * not saved in NV-storage
          * not included in <get-config>, <edit-config>, <copy-config>


> /jon


Andy


_______________________________________________
OPS-NM mailing list
OPS-NM at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm