Re: [Netconf] WG LC for draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis

Andy,

> On May 28, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just be clear -- we will add explicit support for revised datastores, not just a
> normative reference for terminology.  The NACM CRUDX mappings for the
> intended, applied, and operational datastores will be in this draft.
> 
> Are there any objections to adding revised datastore support to NACM?
> This might be an expansion of scope for the charter item.

This is covered by item #6 in the charter:

6. Based on the revised datastore concept work in NETMOD, provide a
revision for the NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols and the used datastore
framework. 

> 
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 4:19 AM, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com <mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com>> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Bierman" <andy@yumaworks.com <mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 3:20 AM
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com <mailto:mbj@tail-f.com>>
> wrote:
> 
> > Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com <mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <
> > > mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > On May 23, 2017, at 12:15 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com <mailto:mbj@tail-f.com>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com <mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> wrote:
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The update is on github.
> > > > >> http://github.com/netconf-wg/rfc6536bis <http://github.com/netconf-wg/rfc6536bis>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would like Martin to look it over before it is posted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Done, and the new text looks good.  I moved the new subsection
> to be
> > > > > the first in 3.2, and I also fixed some minor terminology
> issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, I wonder if we shouldn't make the document even less
> NETCONF
> > > > > specific, and align the terminology to revised-datastores.  For
> > > > > example, currently the document talks about access to "NETCONF
> > > > > datastores".   With the new less protocol-specific terminology
> this
> > > > > would simply be "datastore”.
> > > >
> > > > I would prefer this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK, but the operations are somewhat NETCONF specific.
> > > We will try to make sure we do not create more inconsistencies than
> we
> > > remove ;-)
> >
> > Yes.  But I think what we should do is not any technical changes, just
> > align terminology.
> >
> >
> 
> OK -- the term NETCONF datastore was used twice, now just datastore.
> (pushed to github)
> 
> The term datastore appears a lot.  There are 3 variants:
> 
>     - datastore
>     - configuration datastore
>     - target datastore
> 
> With revised datastores these are not all the same anymore.
> We probably need to go through the entire document and check if the
> correct variant is used in each instance.
> 
> Are there other terms that are needed for alignment?
> 
> Does NACM need to reference the revised-datastores draft to import
> terminology?
> 
> <tp>
> 
> Yes, Normative Reference please.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> > /martin
> 
> Andy
> > >
> > > Andy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com