On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 01:42:18PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > How do the YANG validation rules for datastores apply to this new framework? > The YANG RFC just refers to a 'valid' datastore. Is validation ever done > on the 'intended' datastore, or just 'running' (what we have now).
Note that running == intended as long as you do not support inactive node (commented out notes) or template expansion. If you do support either of these extensions, that what you validate is actually intended and not running. For example, inactive (comment out) nodes do not matter for the validation. > The framework you propose seems reasonable but the real issues show > up in the protocol interaction model(s) that are out of scope for this > draft. Yes, the protocol interaction do of course matter. > Each datastore (running, intended, applied) can all be different, they can > all be YANG-valid, but I;m not sure that buys anything. The current YANG valication rules apply to running/intended. The applied configuration datastore includes dynamic elements hence validation (if does exist for applied) likely has to have different semantics. > It seems complicated to determine that my specific edit is applied > yet, while there are many writers to the data subtrees. Yes, since applied and operational-state are in general constantly changing, it is not really possible to have well-defined synchronization points at which things can be checked to be valid. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
