Vladimir Vassilev <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/22/2016 06:45 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > 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. > So designers augmenting /interfaces/interface with non-presence > container with child leaves should just pick one of the leaves in YANG > 1.1 and put the must statements there instead of the parent > container.
Sorry I can't parse this. What is "leaves in YANG 1.1"? My point is that must expressions don't just exist w/o any reason for the sake of theoretical arguments. If there is a YANG 1.1 model with a must expression in an NP-container, then there is probably a reason for it - the designer wants it to be evaluated if its parent exist. If we change the rules for when must expressions are evaluated, the module designer will have to figure out some other way to add these must expressions, and the performance will be the same. So your argument that many must expressions can lead to performance issues is not really a problem in itself. /martin > Yes this might work. There is no problem adding extra "../" > in the Xpath expressions. But what is the justification of all that > except the "If a container does not have a "presence" statement and > the last child node is deleted, the NETCONF server MAY delete the > container." text? > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
