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

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

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'.

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.  The protocols that are currently
standardised do not support inactive configuration but a number of
proprietary protocols do. 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 would put a stake in the ground for as and when the concept is
standardised and may reduce the proliferation of the term with multiple
meanings.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Berger" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 10:02 PM

> This starts a two week working group last call on
> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04.
>
> The working group last call ends on September 17.
> Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
>
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and
> believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
> This is useful and important, even from authors.
>
> Thank you,
> Netmod Chairs
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod