Subject: Re: [Netconf] How to augment RFC6470 to supply detail configuration change information

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 09:33:46 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Hi -

>From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Jun 1, 2015 11:47 PM
...
>Subject: Re: [Netconf] How to augment RFC6470 to supply detail configuration change information
>
>But it is not the writable configuration data but more a copy of the
>configuration data that got changed. Anyway, if you want to insist
>that this is a violation of section 7.10 of RFC6020, then don't do
>it. I do not believe it is a violation of section 7.10 of RFC6020.

I think this thread makes it clear that there is an unintended
ambiguity in the statement "it is RECOMMENDED that the 'anyxml'
statement not be used to represent configuration data."  Perhaps
replacing the word "represent" with "define" might reduce the
ambiguity.

Randy

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 23:01:31 +0200 (CEST)

> replacing the word "represent" with "define" might reduce the

Yes, I was thinking along these lines as well.  I think this is a good
suggestion.

/martin

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:39:25 +0200

> Yes, I was thinking along these lines as well.  I think this is a good

Martin,

since you have seen this, I assume you will take care of making this
change. ;-)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>