Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This seems like a BIG protocol change to <edit-config> behavior.
> > > IMO this not an error at all. In our server the false-when data is just
> > > pruned, and no error is ever sent for a pruned when=false data node.
> >
> > So you are not following the current RFC 6020 spec?
> >
>
>
> Yes we are following it.
Ok.
> The schema for the edit-config RPC operation contains
> an 'anyxml' for <config> node. It does not contain any
> when-stmts for the data nodes that get passed in the <config> node.
> The correct behavior is to just enforce the error on the when-stmts
> that appear in the rpc-stmt.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Here's an example:
augment /if:interfaces/if:interface {
when "if:type = 'ianaift:ethernetCsmacd'";
container ethernet {
leaf duplex {
type enumeration {
enum "half";
enum "full";
}
}
}
}
Suppose the db is empty.
What if the edit-confif contains
<interfaces>
<interface>
<name>eth0</name>
<eth:duplex>full</eth:duplex>
<type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
</interface>
</interfaces>
will that work or not? I.e., will the eth0 interface be created with
duplex full?
/martin
>
>
>
>
> > I don't think this is a BIG protocol change, since the spec already
> > says that requests for nodes w/ false when expressions MUST send
> > error. The change is to say that this behavior is true regardless of
> > evaluation order.
> >
> > > It may be a client programming error for the client to provide
> > > false when nodes or not. What if the client is reusing some
> > > code that sends 5 parameters, it it's OK if 1 of them gets
> > > pruned sometimes because of a false when (e.g, product
> > > feature-specific knob and that feature is not installed)
> >
> > Well, it might be simpler to send if-featured nodes that the specific
> > server doesn't support - this is also an error in 6020.
> >
> > > BTW, this is a really good example of what not to do, if one
> > > wants to make the YANG specification protocol independent.
> >
> > That statement is true for the entire section 8.2, it is not
> > specifically true for this change.
> >
> >
> > /martin
> >
>
>
> Andy
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
