Subject: [netmod] opstate-reqs issue #1 - Define/Clarify "fully synchronized" in "Requirement 1.D"

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 18:01:53 +0100

To clarify what I failed to eloquently express in the interim meeting.

I propose changing the text for requirement 1.D. This also removes the 
need to define what fully synchronized means.

Old text for 1.D
        D.  For asynchronous systems, when fully synchronized, the data
            in the applied configuration is the same as the data in the
            intended configuration.

Proposed text for 1.D:
        D.  When the configuration change for any intended
            configuration leaf has been successfully applied to the
            system (i.e. not failed, nor deferred due to absent hardware)
            then the existence and value of the corresponding applied
            configuration leaf must match the intended configuration
            leaf.

Rob

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 21:14:56 +0200 (CEST)

>            configuration leaf must match the intended configuration

I think this text is better.  I suggest s/leaf/node/ in order to cover
also lists, leaf-lists, and p-containers.

/martin

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:43:19 +0100

> also lists, leaf-lists, and p-containers.
Agreed.  I had originally written it using node but changed it to leaf 
to because of the the text for 1.C:

        C.  The data model for the applied configuration is the same as
            the data model for the intended configuration (same leaves)

Thanks,
Rob

> .