On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > > - New feature: non-unique config false leaf-lists > > > > It is unclear where we are with this. While there was some > > discussion at IETF 94, there was no clear indication whether this > > change should be done or not. More input would be welcome. > > I think there are two options: > > A. Allow non-config leaf-lists to have duplicate values. > > B. Add a new keyword "allow-duplicates true|false" to leaf-list. > It is an error if allow-duplicates is true in config. > > B feels more correct to me, but A is obviously simpler. > Agreed. It seems like a data model property, not a server implementation choice. The leaf-list is broken in many ways but it gets fixed 1 little bit at a time. We added a "delete-all" enumeration in our server for deleting an entire leaf-list because the current delete (specify every instance) is too cumbersome. There is also no good way to test if a particular leaf-list instance exists. If you provide a leaf-list with an instance in a <get*> filter, it is treated as a content-match node. (i.e., return all siblings or none) There is no way to just retrieve just leaf-list foo=42. You have to retrieve all foo nodes with a selection filter, then test all the values on the client. > > > - Old function: make auto-delete for choice and when non-NETCONF specific > > > > Revision -08 of YANG 1.1 defines auto-deletion as a property of the > > NETCONF edit-config operation and the issue is whether this > > auto-deletion behaviour is a NETCONF specific edit-config property > > or a general YANG datastore validation property that equally applies > > to RESTCONF, COMI, ... > > > > It is unclear where we are with this. More input would be welcome. > > I think it would be very confusing if e.g. RESTCONF behaved > differently than NETCONF. However, I can see how it might make sense > for a server on a constrained device to not do auto-delete - but OTOH > such a server probably don't do "must" and "when" checking at all. > And it might have specialized data models that don't use such > constructs. > > > I don't like any of the NETCONF-specific text in YANG 1.1. YANG datastore constraints refer to a conceptual "valid datastore". There is no reason to talk about specific protocol behavior, except that we are too lazy to put protocol text where it belongs. It should at least be clear that datastore validation does not at all depend on how the datastore contents were changed. The current text does not even fully support <copy-config>, so it does not even support NETCONF, let alone RESTCONF. IMO auto-deletion should not be changed. It works fine and the only issue that has ever come up is auto-deleting data from an edit-config payload. /martin > > Andy > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
