Vladimir Vassilev <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 disagree. If the model needs to have some semantic validation rules, the designer is going to put them in a place such that they are evaluated when the need to be evaluated. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
