> On 22 Oct 2015, at 12:45, Balazs Lengyel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > I STRONGLY agree with Andy, Interfaces MUST work the same way. Autodeletion > MUST work or NOT work for all interfaces (Netconf, Restconf, CLI, GUI, etc.) > the same way. IMO it is not a protocol issue. It is part of the YANG > definition.
This however limits the use of YANG to NETCONF and closely related protocols, which is IMO short-sighted. People have already started using YANG models with other protocols: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/h_0jZbqfdcWFA8_hXx0gGzoi4X0 Putting too much protocol details into data modelling language definition actually undermines the value of the standard - users of other protocols will simply ignore those MUSTs and MUST NOTs they cannot or don't want to implement. Lada > > > The whole idea behind model driven OAM is that we have one model that works > (mostly) the same way on all interfaces. The more differences we have the > less usable the product, the more difficult to implement. > regards Balazs > > On 2015-10-21 15:07, Andy Bierman 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. >> >> 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. >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. > Senior Specialist > ECN: 831 7320 > Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: > [email protected] > > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
