Subject: [netmod] Summary of issues for WG LC for draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:59:16 +0100

Hi,

Here is the status, and proposed resolution, of all the issues tracked 
on github for the WG LC of the revised datastores draft:

https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues

Proposed text has been sent to the WG alias for all the open issues 
except the move to the RFC 2119 language and the updated introduction.  
I think that these 2 changes would be best be reviewed once all of WG 
feedback has been incorporated into the draft and a new version posted 
for the WG to verify that all concerns have been addressed.

#1 Define "inactive configuration"
Resolution: Proposal is that this issue is also covered by #5.

#2 Emphasize that the schema for all conventional datastores must be the 
same
Resolution: Proposed text accepted, draft updated, issue closed.

#3 Enhance description of intended datastore
Resolution: Proposed text sent to WG, draft will be updated.

#4 Make convention datastores a subsection of conventional
Resolution: Change accepted, draft updated, issue closed.

#5 Provide a better introduction to justify the architecture
Resolution: Change accepted, draft will be updated.

#6 Describe validation
Resolution: Proposed text defining <running> sent to WG, draft will be 
updated.

#7 Other cosmetic improvements proposed by Phil
Resolution: Change accepted, draft updated, issue closed.

#8 Allow the system to add configuration to <running>
Resolution: No change to the draft, issue will be closed.

#9 Make it clear that validation of intended includes default values
Resolution: Covered by propose text for issue #3, issue will be closed.

#10 Is it allowed to violate uniqueness of key values?
Resolution: Proposed text sent to WG, draft will be updated.

#11 actions and rpcs should be allowed to include other datastores in 
their XPath evaluation.
Resolution: Out of scope, issue will be closed.

#12 Appendix minor comments
Resolution: Change accepted, draft updated, issue closed.

#13 Does the NMDA architecture need to update 7950?
Resolution: Yes, document updated, issue closed.

#14 Does the NMDA architecture need to use RFC 2119 language?
Resolution: Yes, document will be updated.

#15 How can a client determine that a module is NMDA compatible?
Resolution: No change required, issue will be closed.

#16 Remove "commonly" from datastore definition sentences.
Resolution: New.  Currently plan to accept the proposed change.

Thanks,
Rob