> On 13 Jan 2016, at 12:34, 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.
My question is about the opposite situation: there may be multiple candidate instances/list entries. > The current text does not say anything about conceptual instances > that correspond to the ancestors and keys provided in the request. > > Why would these rules be different for config vs. opstate? Because opstate lists needn't have keys. Lada > > > > > > >> But sec. 7.15.2 says: "For lists, all key leafs MUST > > >> also be included." What if a list in state data has no keys? > > > > > > No keys means that "all keys" is the empty set. > > > > How does the server then select the list entry to which the action > > is to be applied? > > Sorry, I missed this point. You are correct. Invoking an action in a > descendant node to a list w/o keys is not possible. > > > /martin > > > > > Andy -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
