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

[Phil Shafer <[e-mail]>]

"t.petch" writes:
>Inactive appears a dozen times but is not defined, except in the course
>of those appearances it effectively is, but is sometimes 'inactive',
>sometimes 'inactive configuration', sometimes 'inactive data'.

Agree.  Consistent terms are good things.

>I would find it clearer if the term was used consistently and if there
>was an explicit definition amongst the other definitions in section 2
>such as
>
>inactve configuration: Configuration that is present in <running> which
>is not in use by the device and which plays no part in validation.  It
>cannot appear in any other datastore.

Inactive configuration should be allowed in <candidate> and <startup>,
as well as in dynamic datastores.  It's hard to put constraints on
a facility that we're really not defining.

>The protocols that are currently
>standardised do not support inactive configuration but a number of
>proprietary protocols do.

In JUNOS, we use the standard protocols but encoded these as
non-standard attributes.

>Inactive configuration is only exposed to
>clients that indicate support for inactive configuration; clients not
>indicating support for  inactive configuration receive the contents of
><running> with the inactive configuration removed.

This is also not true for our implementation.  If you <get-config>
on any datastore that contains inactive data, you'll receive
that data.

Thanks,
 Phil