On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
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).
Can someone explain to me what exactly breaks NACM? An example would
help me.
/js (as contributor)
"It is absolutely legal to configure "update" rights to /interfaces to a
group of users reserving the "create" right to the superuser. How is
this scenario handled by servers ignoring empty non-presence
containers?" (this is excerpt from an earlier post on that thread)
If a non-presence container always exits in YANG 1.1 this usage example
is not possible.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
