Subject: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-10

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:44:35 -0700

Hi,

I have reviewed this draft and it seems ready for publication.

I am not convinced separation of per-interface config and state
is a good idea wrt/ server resources and network bandwidth.
Replicating all indexing on large tables introduces synchronization
issues, e.g., finding out which configured addresses or
neighbors are not being used in operational state.

Why is there a "mandatory true" statement on a config=false node?
Is this just a cut-and-paste bug from when the config=true nodes were
cloned?
(augment interface-state with  /ipv6/address/prefix-length).
There is no explanation.  Why MUST this leaf be returned
in every reply? IMO mandatory-stmt should be removed here.

Andy

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:47:05 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

> in every reply? IMO mandatory-stmt should be removed here.

Yes I think this is a copy-and-paste bug.  The corresponding node for
ipv4 is not mandatory.  I will remove this statement.

/martin