Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> 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".
>
> A lot of effort went into defining the terms.  Having "foo configuration
> datastore" (not "foo datastore") is really important, because it binds to
> the term for "configuration".  FWIW, I think that "the operational state
> datastore" fell out more for symmetry - because it clearly doesn't bind to
> either "system state" or "applied configuration" ;)
>
> The end of the 'operational state datastore' term says "This datastore is
> commonly referred to as "<operational>".   And <operational> expands
> colloquially to "the operational datastore", albeit one may utter the full
> expansion if desired.
>
> So, the net-net (I think) is that, in writing, we have <operational> and
> "the operational state datastore" but, when spoken, we have "operational"
> and "the operational datastore".
>
> Makes sense?
>
>
rather confusing, since this <operational> notation is not defined anywhere.
If the term 'state' added any value, we would use it more often, but I will
change the text just to get done faster.




> Kent // contributor
>
>
>
Andy