> On 21 Oct 2015, at 15:07, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:33, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > IMO we do not need lots of rules for when-stmt. > > They are harder to enforce than just implementing the auto-deletion. > > > > Note that auto-deletion also applies to nodes already in candidate or > > running. > > It is just a derivative case to have a newly-created node deleted right > > away. > > If you add node /foo it may cause node /bar and node /baz to get deleted. > > > > I strongly object to treating a false when-stmt in a datastore validation > > as an error. This is not how YANG 1.0 works, and this is not > > backward-compatible. > > I think it has nothing to do with YANG (1.0 or whatever), and RFC 6020 > correctly describes this auto-deletion behaviour for "choice" in sec. 7.9.6 > NETCONF <edit-config> Operations. It is indeed protocol business - YANG spec > should just define what's valid and what isn't. > > IMO RESTCONF spec doesn't require auto-deletion. > > > > Our server uses the same validation engine for both protocols. > RESTCONF does not change the behavior of YANG in any way. > I don't see how YANG validation procedures would not apply to RESTCONF.
The validation procedure does apply (the notion of a valid data tree has to be the same) but auto-deletion doesn't because it is specified in "NETCONF <edit-config> ..." sections (7.9.6 and 8.3.2), and RESTCONF doesn't use <edit-config>. > > YANG says that the node semantics apply IFF the when-stmt evaluates to true. > It is up to the implementation to enforce that. It applies to server-created > nodes or nodes created via some protocol. Yes, but it can be enforced either by auto-deleting offending nodes, or by refusing to accept changes that lead to an invalid configuration. Lada > > > Lada > > Andy > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Balazs Lengyel > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Martin, > > I would want to codify this. My earlier proposal was: > > > > - when MUST NOT be dependent on a data node controlled by a when or choice > > statement > > > > Notice the strong MUST NOT statement. This would simplify life greatly. > > regards Balazs > > > > On 2015-10-20 10:09, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > I have never seen anyone trying to refer to the conditional nodes in a > > when expression - simply b/c it doesn't make any sense. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
