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

Jon Saperia wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?

right.
counters, ifOperStatus, timestamps, etc.

However, there are corner-cases which could be used to argue
that MAX-ACCESS of read-only does not always mean the object
is classified as 'state' (e.g., agent-generated key or row index
could be saved in NV-storage).

>>> /jon
>>
>>
>> Andy
>>
> 

Andy

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