Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> I guess the NMDA transition plan to move the child nodes to a
> config=true
> >> node
> >> name /restconf that has only config=false nodes in it.  This seems quite
> >> disruptive
> >> and not a productive use of engineering resources, or support and
> customer
> >> re-training.
> >
> > I agree with you.  We've said that it is ok to have pure config false
> > trees, if it makes sense for what we're trying to model.
> >
> > The only "issue" with the tree above is that its top-level node's name
> > contains the word "state".
>
> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general
> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates.  Particularly,
> these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the opstate
> value for configured nodes.  These modules have the misfortune of
> having "-state" in their name, but they're otherwise fine.
>
>

This contradicts some details we have been told about NMDA

1) the transition guidelines say otherwise

New modules and modules that are not concerned with the
operational state of configuration information SHOULD
immediately be structured to be NMDA-compatible


2) RD defines operational state to include config=false nodes such as
counters,
so these modules are properly named.



K.  // contributor
>
>
>
>
Andy