Re: [netmod] Last Call: <draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09.txt> (Network Management Datastore Architecture) to Proposed Standard two

["tom p." <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 4:36 PM

> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:08:24PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > "tom p." <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Much of this I-D is about the idea that network management data
objects
> > > can often take two different values.  The I-D always refers to
this as
> > > being two values but is that a limit that this architecture
imposes; or
> > > can it be more?
> >
> > The I-D talks about two instantiations in the Objectives section,
when
> > the original "config vs oper values" problem is explained, and how
> > NMDA solves the problem.
> >
> > But the archtecture allows for any number of instantiations; it all
> > depends on which datastores a particular server implements.  For
> > example, a config node might have one value in <candidate>, a
> > different in <running> and yet a different value in <startup>.  This
> > is not new to this document.
> >
>
> Right. Lets see there "two" is used:
>
> - 1st paragraph in 2. Objectives: I think the text is clear since it
>   talks about a concrete example of a configured value and an
>   operationally used value.
>
> - 2nd paragraph in 2. Objectives: This text talks about two separate
>   branches in the old models, this should be fine.
>
> - 4th paragraph in 2. Objectives: I think this is potentially
>   causing the confusion. It says:
>
>     With the revised architectural model of datastores defined in this
>     document, the data objects are defined only once in the YANG
schema
>     but independent instantiations can appear in two different
>     datastores, one for configured values and one for operational
state
>     values.
>
>   Perhaps a better wording would be this:
>
>     With the revised architectural model of datastores defined in this
>     document, the data objects are defined only once in the YANG
>     schema but independent instantiations can appear in different
>     datastores, e.g., for a configured value and one for an
>     operationally used value.
>
>   This e.g. then kind of continues the example the section started
>   with. Would this change have avoided the question?

Juergen

Yes, I would find that clearer.  Perhaps even better

OLD
     e.g., for a configured value and one for an
    operationally used value.
NEW
     e.g., one for a configured value and one (another?)  for an
     operationally used value.

I would say 'one' and 'another'  but 'one' and 'one' would be clear
enough.

Tom Petch

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