-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Is there a requirement for asynchronous systems to provide a blocking config update? #3
Comments
There seems to be on list agreement to remove sub-requirements A and B, but there remains an issue regarding if the top-level requirement (3) is still needed, or if it is just another way to describe the need for asynchronous/synchronous systems. |
Closing: This issue no longer makes sense, given the new definitions for a/synchronous configuration operations. That is, the definition of a synchronous configuration operation is that the request blocks, whereas that's exactly not the case for an asynchronous configuration operation. |
My bad, closed too early |
Requirement #3 was discussed on today's call. We agreed to remove the
We have consensus on the above, but wanted to rewrite it relying more on Anybody want to take a stab at it? Thanks, |
just sent email to Rob asking for final draft text |
Moving issue to REVIEW. On list, Kent writes:
|
OK with above but missing point D (now merged with E) D. Support for asynchronous configuration operations requires the server to send |
The first part of D is no longer necessary - it is implicit by the definition of "asynchronous config operation". The second part of D (the old E) is defined as the new B above. |
too many places to look at: |
New 3 and Terms accepted in -00 draft (moving to DONE) |
It wasn't clear to me where the requirement 3 (A) came from. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, only that it doesn't appear to be obviously specified in the openconfig-netmod-opstate draft.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: