Hi,
I have to report that at least 1 customer agrees with you about auto-deletion. The comment was "how are we supposed to tell there is a bug in the client if we do not get back an error instead of silent deletion?" A: use "must" instead of "when" and you will get an error right away. In hindsight, perhaps NETCONF should have the equivalent of the --force option in many Unix commands. e.g., only do the auto-deletion if --force is present otherwise return an error that auto-deletion would have occurred. Andy On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:45 AM, 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. > > 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]> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:33, Andy Bierman < <[email protected]> >> [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]>[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]>[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] > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
