Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:35:48AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > > Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > auto-deletion in choice/when should be described as a property > > of the > > > > > > > data model for the datastore. Parts of the text from Section > > 8.2.2 > > > > > > > should be made more generic and moved, probably to a new section > > > > > > > 8.1.1. I will have a look at this. > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > IMO YANG spec should tell what's valid and what isn't, and stop > > there. > > > > > > > > > > As technical contributor, I tend to agree. The purpose of validation > > > > > should be to return a boolean - datastore is valid or invalid. > > > > > > > > Right. This is what "must" does. "when" is different. If a node's > > > > "when" expression becomes false, that node is deleted, and its other > > > > constraints are no longer used (e.g. must, mandatory etc). These are > > > > two different use cases, two different tools available to the data > > > > model designer. > > > > > > > > If we put "when" to the side for a moment, do you also think that > > > > there should be no auto-deletion of cases in a choice? > > > > > > > > If this discussion had started from implementation/deployment > > > > experience that said that "when" could not be implemented or that it > > > > made it difficult to write NMS system or something else, things would > > > > be different. But now we have a feature that has been in use for 5+ > > > > years, and there are several implementations of it out there, and now > > > > we say that it should be removed? Or worse, keep the syntax but > > > > radically change the semantics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The one special case that has been identified is data provided > > > as part of an edit that is silently deleted and <ok/> returned. > > > This could be considered different than providing an edit that > > > deletes existing data nodes. > > > > Right. I think an error should be returned to the client in this > > case. This is nicer to the client. Otherwise, the client might set > > something, get <ok/> back and the might be surprised when the changes > > did not actually happen. > > > > (FWIW, this is how we interpreted the spec and thus have implemented) > > > > > > What text says return an error here?
I think we already had this discussion. I thought that 8.3.1 was supposed to cover this, but I can see how it doesn't. So I agree there is no such clear text in 6020, even though that was the intention. I am open to an discussion about the best behavior in this case. It is trivial to change the code to not return the error. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
