Hi,
The definition of "status" in RFC 7950 in section 7.21.2 (full text
below), states:
If no status is specified, the default is "current".
From my interpretation of the text in the draft, this implies that the
status of the "new" child leaf in the following example is "current",
and that this example is allowed!
My questions are:
- Is my interpretation of the current text correct?
- Is this actually the best behaviour, or should it inherit like the
config statement? Should I raise an errata for this?
container old {
status deprecated;
leaf new {
description "what status do I have?";
}
}
Thanks,
Rob
Full 7.21.2 text from 7950:
7.21.2. The "status" Statement
The "status" statement takes as an argument one of the strings
"current", "deprecated", or "obsolete".
o "current" means that the definition is current and valid.
o "deprecated" indicates an obsolete definition, but it permits
new/continued implementation in order to foster interoperability
with older/existing implementations.
o "obsolete" means that the definition is obsolete and SHOULD NOT be
implemented and/or can be removed from implementations.
If no status is specified, the default is "current".
If a definition is "current", it MUST NOT reference a "deprecated" or
"obsolete" definition within the same module.
If a definition is "deprecated", it MUST NOT reference an "obsolete"
definition within the same module.
For example, the following is illegal:
typedef my-type {
status deprecated;
type int32;
}
leaf my-leaf {
status current;
type my-type; // illegal, since my-type is deprecated
}
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
