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

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

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.

Lada

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

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67