Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 21 Dec 2016, at 10:32, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >>> Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> 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? > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>>> - Is this actually the best behaviour, or should it inherit like the > >>>> config statement? > >>> > >>> I think the idea was that if the status != current, it is better for > >>> the reader if it is explicitly stated. > >>> > >>>> Should I raise an errata for this? > >>> > >>> No. > >>> > >>> However, we could have said that a current node under a deprecated > >>> node (etc) in the same module is an error, in order to force people > >>> (through the useage of YANG validators) to detect and fix this. > >> > >> Since "current" is the default, correctly deprecating a subtree would > >> mean to explicitly add the "status" statement to every single node in > >> the subtree. > > > > Yes. > > > >> I think that "obsolete" should apply to the whole subtree, no matter > >> what status descendants have, and "deprecated" should apply to the whole > >> subtree except for parts that are obsolete. > > > > Maybe, but this is not how it works in YANG 1 and 1.1. For the > > reasoning behind this, see above. Maybe this is not perfect, and > > something that we should look into if we update YANG. But I don't > > think this is a problem. > > I think it is a problem. We can see a lot of these things before > long because of the update rules. For example, it may apply to all > the *-state trees, and tagging every single node therein with > "deprecated" or "obsolete" is a useless exercise.
I don't think it is a useless exercise. It helps the reader to quickly see that a node is deprecated, without having to search the text for all ancestors' status. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
