Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 11/09/2017 18:27, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 05:12:42PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>     The contents of <intended> are related to the 'config true'
>>     subset of <operational>, such that a client can determine to what
>>     extent the intended configuration is currently applied by checking
>>     whether the contents of <intended> also appear in <operational>.
>>
> Editorial: Should this not be "The content of <intended> is" and "the
> content of <intended>"?
I think "contents of <intended> are" is correct because the elements can 
be enumerated.  We also seem to use "contents" in other places in the draft.

>
> There are several possible pitfalls here since (i) <operational> can
> change anytime, (ii) it might not be easy/possible to obtain a
> consistent snapshot of <operational>, and (iii) dynamic datastores can
> provide values that "overwrite" <intended> and hence comparing values
> may not really be sufficient. As long as the text is understood as
> additional explanation and not used to write naive code to determine
> how much of <intended> has been applied, it is fine. Otherwise, it
> may be a source of future problems.
One tweak could be to change "applied" to "in use":

    The contents of <intended> are related to the 'config true'
    subset of <operational>, such that a client can determine to what
    extent the intended configuration is currently in use by checking
    whether the contents of <intended> also appear in <operational>.

Is this better?

Thanks,
Rob

>
> /js
>