Hi Rob,

 

In the case we're trying to work out basically client and server would be
aware of base class, augmentation and deviation as the SW running on the box
is expecting a value for a leaf of the augmented data, so leaf d for the NC
server (and the application SW dealing with the HW) is expected to have a
value in the device.  The device would not support objects of the base class
only.  I could understand that a NC client interacts with other servers only
supporting the base class as that device may not require the augmented
leafs.

 

Best regards - Vriendelijke groeten,

Bart Bogaert

Broadband-Access System Architect Data

Contact number +32 3 2408310 (+32 477 673952)

 

NOKIA

Copernicuslaan 50, 2018 Antwerp, Belgium
Fortis 220-0002334-42
VAT BE 0404 621 642 Register of Legal Entities Antwerp



<<
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any
action based on it, is strictly prohibited without the prior consent of its
author.
>> 

 

From: Robert Wilton [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 28 November 2016 12:48
To: Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [netmod] Mandatory leafs via augment

 

Hi Bart,

In your idea, am I correct to assume that only the client loads (base-class,
augment-base, and base-deviation), and the server only knows about
(base-class and augment-base)?

Further, am I right to assume that the server would still support clients
configuring base even if they don't know about augment-base?  I.e. from a
server perspective, leaf d isn't actually mandatory.

Thanks,
Rob



On 28/11/2016 11:28, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE) wrote:

Assume the following.
 
module base-class {
   prefix base;
   container base {
      leaf a;
      leaf b;
      leaf c;
   }
}
 
module augment-base {
  prefix aug;
  import base-class { prefix base; }
 
  augment '/base:base'{
    leaf d;
  }
}
 
module base-deviation {
  prefix base-dev;
 
  deviation "/base:base" {
    deviate add {
      must "./aug:d" {
        error-message "A value for d must be present when configuring
augmented base";
      }
    }
  }
 
Best regards - Vriendelijke groeten,
Bart Bogaert
Broadband-Access System Architect Data
Contact number +32 3 2408310 (+32 477 673952)
 
NOKIA
Copernicuslaan 50, 2018 Antwerp, Belgium
Fortis 220-0002334-42
VAT BE 0404 621 642 Register of Legal Entities Antwerp
 
<< 
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any
action based on it, is strictly prohibited without the prior consent of its
author.

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 28 November 2016 12:09
To: Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)  <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: [netmod] Mandatory leafs via augment
 
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:42:42AM +0000, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE) wrote:

 
How can we achieve the same if no when-clause can be constructed but 
we still would like to have a leaf to be mandatory.  One way we 
thought of achieving this is
 
-          have a YANG module defining the augmented data
 
-          construct a must statement on the object being augmented where

we

check that something needs to be present that is added via a deviation.
 

 
An example may help here...
 
/js
 






_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to