[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Jon Saperia wrote:


Andy Bierman wrote:
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>



A reasonable interpretation of the last would be that it includes counters of various things, gauges , etc. Right? 

right.
counters, ifOperStatus, timestamps, etc.

However, there are corner-cases which could be used to argue
that MAX-ACCESS of read-only does not always mean the object
is classified as 'state' (e.g., agent-generated key or row index
could be saved in NV-storage).

/jon 


Andy



Andy


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