Re: [Netconf] Comments on draft-lhotka-netconf-restconf-transactions-00

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 03:30:01PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 07:22:02PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> > 2) I don't think that this draft needs to mention <intended> at all.  
> >> > Instead, everywhere you mention <intended> then you should be saying 
> >> > <running>.  I.e. your staging datastores should update <running> on a 
> >> > commit operation, just like a commit of <candidate> updates <running>.  
> >> > <intended> is always just updated as a side effect of a write to 
> >> > <running>, and as such is a tangential consideration.
> >> 
> >> The main reason for using <intended> is that the target datastore into
> >> which staging datastores are merged has to be valid at all
> >> times. <running> has somewhat fuzzy semantics both in NETCONF and under
> >> NMDA. But yes, the text also says that essentially we have <running> and
> >> <intended> being the same. NMDA explicitly permits this simplification.
> >
> > I think NMDA says that <running> and <intented> in general are _not_
> > the same but that for _some_ implementations they may be de factor the
> > same or indistinguishable. If your proposal assumes <running> equals
> > <intended>, then your proposal is only applicable to _some_
> > implementations.
> 
> It is indeed <intended> what is intended in my draft, I can easily avoid
> mentioning <running>. The only minor deviation is that RFC 8432
> says that <intended> doesn't survive reboots, which is not desirable in
> this case.
>

Then you are making a mistake and you are unnecessarily limiting the
applicability of your proposal.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>