Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote:
>
> > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 13 Jan 2016, at 11:31, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
> > > >> Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> writes:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The action-stmt example on page 27 is wrong.
> > > >>>> The <action> element is missing. It is shown correctly
> > > >>>> on page 105.
> > > >>>> p27
> > > >>>> <rpc message-id="102"
> > > >>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
> > > >>>> <interface xmlns="http://acme.example.com/system";>
> > > >>>> <name>eth1</name>
> > > >>>> <ping>
> > > >>>> <destination>192.0.2.1</destination>
> > > >>>> </ping>
> > > >>>> </interface>
> > > >>>> </rpc>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> p105
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> <rpc message-id="101"
> > > >>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
> > > >>>> <action xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:1">
> > > >>>> <server xmlns="http://example.net/server-farm";>
> > > >>>> <name>apache-1</name>
> > > >>>> <reset>
> > > >>>> <reset-at>2014-07-29T13:42:00Z</reset-at>
> > > >>>> </reset>
> > > >>>> </server>
> > > >>>> </action>
> > > >>>> </rpc>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Fixed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Sec. 7.15 provides few details wrt/ input processing.
> > > >>>> Extra input is ignored? (draft is silent about that).
> > > >>>> YANG attributes like "insert"or "operation" are ignored? (also
> > silent).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Right, just as the text for rpcs. Do you think we need to add some
> > > >>> text about this?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Sec 7.15.2, para 2 is not clear whether the XML hierarchy
> > > >>>> has to exist in any particular datastore (or opstate).
> > > >>>> Since there is no mention of datastores in 7.15, I
> > > >>>> assume the text just refers to the input containing
> > > >>>> schema-valid XML, which may or may not correspond
> > > >>>> to actual data instances somewhere inn the server.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hmm, so if I understand in correctly, actions can be attached also to
> > > >> state data nodes.
> > > >
> > > > Correct. But actually, I think that the data node instance that has
> > > > the action must exist at the time the action is applied.
> > >
> > > OK.
> > >
> >
>
> I asked about this point and the answer was the instance may or may not
> exist.
I know - my fault, sorry.
> The current text does not say anything about conceptual instances
> that correspond to the ancestors and keys provided in the request.
Right. Two options:
1) Keep current text. When an action is invoked, the parent node
may or may not exist.
2) Add text that states that the when an action is invoked, the
parent node MUST exist.
I prefer 2.
> Why would these rules be different for config vs. opstate?
No, they would be the same.
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
