Balazs Lengyel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Martin,
> I agree that A1 is what follows the spirit of YANG, but then IMHO you
> should change/correct 8.2.1 in YANG because that implies A2 and error.
Ok, I agree. I suggest we remove from 8.2.1:
o If data for a node tagged with "when" is present, and the "when"
condition evaluates to "false", the server MUST reply with an
"unknown-element" error-tag in the rpc-error.
and add to 8.2.2:
o Modification requests for nodes tagged with "when", and the "when"
condition evaluates to "false". In this case the server MUST reply
with an "unknown-element" error-tag in the rpc-error.
/martin
> regards Balazs
>
> On 2015-10-13 13:30, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Balazs Lengyel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Hello Martin,
> >> If I had a model
> >>
> >> leaf a {type boolean;}
> >> leaf b {
> >> when a
> >> type int8;
> >> }
> >>
> >> if "a" is false and then you get an edit config with: set b=5 ; set
> >> a=true
> >> What should be the result?
> >> A1) this should succeed as at commit time the "when" will be true.
> > yes.
> >
> >> A2) this should fail as at parsing (as described in 8.2.1 of the YANG
> >> RFC) the when is false - yet. This would also mean that you need 2
> >> edit-configs to set b=5.
> >> regards Balazs
> >
> > /martin
>
> --
> Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
> Senior Specialist
> ECN: 831 7320
> Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
