On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Andy, > > > > > Until the basic show-stoppers are solved, the redundant opstate objects > are not important. > > > Removing the foo-state objects means they are now invisible wrt/ YANG > constraints > > > (must, when, leafref, min/max, etc). IMO this is a show-shopper. YANG > can only cross-reference > > > YANG statements. Invisible opstate hiding behind a datastore label > seems elegant > > > wrt/ <get>, but it looks like a disaster wrt/ YANG. > > > > Nothing has been removed. All the config false nodes are still available, > but now they’re no longer separated into a top-level /foo-state tree for > the sole purpose of being able to report opstate for system-generated > objects. Likewise, all YANG constraints continue to work, but rather than > reference nodes in /foo-state, they’ll now reference nodes in /foo. Does > this make sense? Do you still have an issue? > > > > > This does not work. There are no config=false nodes if they are overlaid onto the config=true nodes. There is no way to say in the YANG XPath that you mean the configured value of /foo vs. the operational value of /foo. There is just 1 leaf that YANG says has 0 or 1 instance (and therefore 0 or 1 value). > Kent // as a contributor > > > > > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
