[netmod] Summary of issues for WG LC for draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Thu, 28 September 2017 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
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 31C2C1342CD for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 EU9CQkzyrn4o for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50A2B134762 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2463; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1506617959; x=1507827559; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=M25HBhA3UmXwk/8xWpjeGjMrESB+FY5qKXWvwIE5mGo=; b=VB60JGz9QSlPGMSPwk7ccRPRFBIrPlejRmVwSSI2uT9qkewQ6Uh2z0Jp Ueybt8mL/8CyNHNhltmSZptAU22DUDgZjmRI1HnH0fY/0paDnDDtQkquC iYXwSHF0yysx0iFfuukEjI1f45LgxPjNDFuCI5fU/aWduX6VYRZlom1PG k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BkAgBCKc1Z/xbLJq1dGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgy+BEW6EH4sTkD6YXwojigEVAQIBAQEBAQEBax0LhUIPAQVuCAImAks?= =?us-ascii?q?UDQgBAYotEKcTgieLEgEBCAIBIAWBDoIdg1OBaisLgWWJJIJgBaEoh16NAoITi?= =?us-ascii?q?UiHK4oQg2SHWYE5NSJCTDIhCB0Vh2c/hnksghUBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,450,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="655049051"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Sep 2017 16:59:17 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.161] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-161.cisco.com [10.63.23.161]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8SGxGLc017366 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:59:17 GMT
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <56ec3b6d-86d8-e8ff-8077-fea5550c4409@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:59:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/wtq7ZXyFWlr30eHCSUT68k7dstQ>
Subject: [netmod] Summary of issues for WG LC for draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04
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: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:59:22 -0000

Hi,

Here is the status, and proposed resolution, of all the issues tracked 
on github for the WG LC of the revised datastores draft:

https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues

Proposed text has been sent to the WG alias for all the open issues 
except the move to the RFC 2119 language and the updated introduction.  
I think that these 2 changes would be best be reviewed once all of WG 
feedback has been incorporated into the draft and a new version posted 
for the WG to verify that all concerns have been addressed.


#1 Define "inactive configuration"
Resolution: Proposal is that this issue is also covered by #5.

#2 Emphasize that the schema for all conventional datastores must be the 
same
Resolution: Proposed text accepted, draft updated, issue closed.

#3 Enhance description of intended datastore
Resolution: Proposed text sent to WG, draft will be updated.

#4 Make convention datastores a subsection of conventional
Resolution: Change accepted, draft updated, issue closed.

#5 Provide a better introduction to justify the architecture
Resolution: Change accepted, draft will be updated.

#6 Describe validation
Resolution: Proposed text defining <running> sent to WG, draft will be 
updated.

#7 Other cosmetic improvements proposed by Phil
Resolution: Change accepted, draft updated, issue closed.

#8 Allow the system to add configuration to <running>
Resolution: No change to the draft, issue will be closed.

#9 Make it clear that validation of intended includes default values
Resolution: Covered by propose text for issue #3, issue will be closed.

#10 Is it allowed to violate uniqueness of key values?
Resolution: Proposed text sent to WG, draft will be updated.

#11 actions and rpcs should be allowed to include other datastores in 
their XPath evaluation.
Resolution: Out of scope, issue will be closed.

#12 Appendix minor comments
Resolution: Change accepted, draft updated, issue closed.

#13 Does the NMDA architecture need to update 7950?
Resolution: Yes, document updated, issue closed.

#14 Does the NMDA architecture need to use RFC 2119 language?
Resolution: Yes, document will be updated.

#15 How can a client determine that a module is NMDA compatible?
Resolution: No change required, issue will be closed.

#16 Remove "commonly" from datastore definition sentences.
Resolution: New.  Currently plan to accept the proposed change.

Thanks,
Rob