On 08/22/2016 03:36 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
This example is based on the bug I propose to be fixed. If you looked at the
patch I propose in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg11637.html sec. 7.1.6
of RFC 6020 is modified:
---
OLD:
7.6.1. The leaf's default value
The default value of a leaf is the value that the server uses if the
leaf does not exist in the data tree. The usage of the default value
depends on the leaf's closest ancestor node in the schema tree that
is not a non-presence container:
NEW:
7.6.1. The leaf's default value
The default value of a leaf is the value that the server uses if the
leaf does not exist in the data tree. The usage of the default value
depends on the leaf's closest ancestor node in the schema tree:
This would effectively remove the distinction between presence and non-presence
containers, and I am not in favour of doing so. In any case, this is not
something to introduce in the AUTH48 stage.
The distinction in the context of the primary reason for introduction of
the "presence" statement indicating explicit semantic meaning of the
presence of a container is still there. However I do not see the value
of distinction in terms of creation and deletion. And it is that
distinction introducing the bulk of clarification texts. The now
mandatory evaluation of all must statements in non-presence containers
is going to introduce very high and unnecessary processing load. I gave
an example with 96 interfaces switch with 20 non-presence containers in
/interfaces/interface. How about top level SDN manager?
By introducing the Y41 "clarification" now they are conforming which is the
only benefit at the cost of limited validation expression flexibility, higher validation
workload, broken NACM and probably some other issues we are about to discover.
I don't agree with this conclusion. NACM probably needs to be updated anyway.
Which of the 3 issues pointed in the conclusion you don't agree with and
why {1. limited validation expression flexibility, 2. higher validation
workload, 3. broken NACM}? Difficult to not agree with 2. And 1 is
predetermined from the fact of the reduced entropy attributed to a
non-presence container - namely its existence now is determined by the
existence of its parent (which reduces flexibility in a very certain way).
I don't see it as a workaround and I don't think there is ANY limitation
whatsoever due to this. The rules are now clear, which is a good thing.
Lada
I have expressed my concerns. I did not find anything addressing the 3
issues above on the list and I thought it was worth posting something in
the context of the ongoing discussion. There may be different opinions
of the significance of the issues but they do exist.
Vladimir
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
