[netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Tue, 22 August 2017 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF6613218E for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2phUMq3OsNqd for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01on0121.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.121]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0258132494 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=MZJSzfpXecIFfbeCkaao45iSk/3E8Jk1cGcP5qkW+Tw=; b=P2P8mJ4bwFUHpOVgEcv9WzlN21VkT9XI1hFE5gS6Vg/CD2mMOtnDe5gtvmUe9n5ShA8gxMO5xuJxiD4LDnjP6iDn4n2RZ5GYKKYBfsvmRTAU/BwbABfV0wA5kzO9/sXnVA8Sa6n9dQTAvHNfUGYNm3avX3yz0mgxXeuKNc57oP8=
Received: from CY1PR0501MB1450.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.149.11) by CY1PR0501MB1307.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.226.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.1.1385.4; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:53:46 +0000
Received: from CY1PR0501MB1450.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.149.11]) by CY1PR0501MB1450.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.149.11]) with mapi id 15.01.1385.008; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:53:46 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text
Thread-Index: AQHTG4BdACYCFz8ZdEeedIP50UiUzw==
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:53:46 +0000
Message-ID: <4425D564-7AD1-40B7-853F-FA9328E10F2D@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=kwatsen@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.14]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR0501MB1307; 6:c81rvG0mxjVUJ639YxA9hXBf9StU5bs1tS5ZJK1kW8RQTmbafFYk8Fti8xScuPbR6ki5Vy0wEA4ad294qwbBpc2cQL40Gd6hzqLvsgKXsPUJqnox3lfSiOTilM38KLL/3fOwQuhdol80EFpKOdIsJDqNL7vozLvllAVfwFjQQnjjbJbS4EqwJxRBcj6P6Q4vrPSZR8jzhL7qpluG9Eby2ukkaG7yMG2iMJTS2On4Mm7bkOkrBjnSHCLwJMRUcFSY2EA96USO0XPxdVKJs1Nfzpi57lS0dVArsgXO5IghohVbfFkrRG+b8te4Aa5F1uN27oBBxcQEguT4RpXdPlRQXA==; 5:sYLANhBf/8V/N5hHhAjy2/B+KAGowj7nhGz3jrvsYicLdsoxog8SMMHVtHPQo2N8bzvuM//PlA9eU7bBLm/7pMmu7S+zkzbcKde6nEnUFsYcMJMfc8UIcAB9Av5DRH7HUdQF96DYVvXgkKd7qe/NeA==; 24:0sTZXIz3q846WlYSRTVy6blO6i23Re86EXyDOGO65ecsEfgMnlYBNJ/tP217FJ3A44eIEkWTv7VRwvMGRMGBq+Nve5q2CSjEr7HueSHn9Dw=; 7:fKssg4KReD2LxqENaiLMCR7Z5yeh6icDNPUVrYDbyXR0ZUWNEpYuGe50yVmyjVeIyQzTjhTez1O1Qg2+oHmqvZrSXYr1MMim7c6LnqtEAt7xz4IdOI1yeFv6QTRGIBRVNOvX8Q91O+jmfeqzNSgm9nJG6ltDM6LMYNGViCJG+85UPk3QMM6Pyha4BRZnZXmMdAAyEikTuot04qksz3IwH/yNqpJKLiKCvzf2fNWZ2rg=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1aac2258-264f-4109-969e-08d4e9978054
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(2017030254152)(300000503095)(300135400095)(48565401081)(2017052603031)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1307;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY1PR0501MB1307:
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR0501MB1307D218FFC2CD1A855FA125A5840@CY1PR0501MB1307.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(100000703101)(100105400095)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123558100)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562025)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1307; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1307;
x-forefront-prvs: 04073E895A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39860400002)(189002)(199003)(81166006)(8676002)(14454004)(33656002)(77096006)(1730700003)(106356001)(36756003)(478600001)(81156014)(101416001)(105586002)(8936002)(5640700003)(2351001)(82746002)(6916009)(5660300001)(6506006)(110136004)(3280700002)(189998001)(53936002)(66066001)(2900100001)(99286003)(68736007)(6512007)(4001350100001)(3660700001)(86362001)(6116002)(2501003)(97736004)(83716003)(25786009)(3846002)(102836003)(7736002)(83506001)(2906002)(54356999)(6436002)(305945005)(50986999)(6486002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1307; H:CY1PR0501MB1450.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <45DC6138C4568344BF4ED66A053966A3@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Aug 2017 19:53:46.7505 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0501MB1307
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/QwejU9ld7Cl9NGRk8m9i_PB4aoA>
Subject: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:53:50 -0000

Hi,

During the meeting in Chicago, the NMDA authors took an action to 
propose some text for S4.23.  After a little review, the following
emerged.  Yes, it's short, but was anything left anything out?


=====START=====

4.23 Operational Data

Operational data includes both config "false" nodes as well as,
on servers supporting <operational> [draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores],
the applied value of config "true" nodes.
 
YANG modules SHOULD be designed assuming they will be used on 
servers supporting <operational>.  With this in mind, YANG
modules SHOULD define config "false" wherever they make sense
to the data model.  Config "false" nodes SHOULD NOT be defined
to provide the operational value for configuration nodes, 
except when the value space of a configured and operational
values may differ, in which case a distinct config "false" 
node SHOULD be defined to hold the operational value for the
configured node.

=====STOP=====


One question that came up is if "operational data" is a well-defined
term.  This string appears 10 times in rfc6087bis.  Most interestingly,
appendix Section A.8. (v05 to v06) includes this line item:

    Changed term "operational state" to "operational data"

So it seems to be deliberate...


Kent  // contributor