Re: [OPS-AREA] RE: [OPS-NM] Comments on XSDMI BoF proposal


Andy Bierman wrote:
> Jon Saperia wrote:
>> Thanks for the clarification, lets see what Dave says.  If it is as 
>> you say, then I would say what is the justification for introducing 
>> duplication of information?
>
> What duplication are you talking about?
>
> BTW, I do not agree with the RFC 4741 definition of config
> because it is incomplete.
>
> I use a very NETCONF-centric definition, with 3 states:
>
>   config: Persistent Configuration
>           * saved in NV-storage
>           * included in <get-config>, <edit-config>, <copy-config>
>
>   tconfig: Transient Configuration (e.g., per-session configuration)
>           * not saved in NV-storage
>           * included in <get-config>, <edit-config>, <copy-config>
>
>   state: Non-Configuration Data
>           * not saved in NV-storage
>           * not included in <get-config>, <edit-config>, <copy-config>
>
>

A reasonable interpretation of the last would be that it includes 
counters of various things, gauges , etc. Right?
>> /jon
>
>
> Andy
>

-- 
Jon Saperia
(cell) 617-201-2655
(Eve.) 978-461-0264


_______________________________________________
OPS-NM mailing list
OPS-NM@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm