Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:24:17AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > Except that we never use that term.
> > It is always called operational datastore when we talk about it in
> meetings.
> > Hence, the new NMDA terms section:
> >
> >  ** NMDA Terms
> >
> > The following terms are defined in the
> > Network Management Datastore Architecture
> > (NMDA) ^I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores^.
> > and are not redefined here:
> >
> > - configuration
> > - conventional configuration datastore (also called conventional
> datastore)
> > - datastore
> > - operational state
> > - operational state datastore (also called operational datastore)
> >
> > IMO these alternates should be put in the RD draft since they reflect the
> > terms we actually use.
> >
>
> I know that we tend to be sloppy in meetings and often in emails but
> in written RFCs (specifications) I would personally prefer to use a
> single term.
>


So change it in the RD draft to the term we actually use "operational
datastore".




>
> > I think the first sentence refers to the temporary non-NMDA module.
> >
> > NEW:
> >
> > (a) Modules that require immediate support for the NMDA features
> > SHOULD be structured for NMDA.  A temporary non-NMDA version of these
> > models SHOULD exist, either an
> > existing model or a model created either by hand or with
> > suitable tools that mirror the current modeling strategies.
>
> I am not sure about the second SHOULD. I think the temporary non-NMDA
> version is more a MAY than a SHOULD.
>
>
OK -- changed 2nd SHOULD to MAY



> /js
>

Andy


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