Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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).
This is correct. But note that YANG doesn't allow config true nodes to refer to config false nodes anyway, so this is less of an issue. Also note that draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00 proposes that semantic constraints don't apply to the operational-state datastore (see section 5.3). BTW, it has been suggested before to add a function similar to the XSLT 1.0 function "document", that could be used to refer to nodes in other documents (or rather other datastores in our case). /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
