Hi Phil,
Wouldn't you just write this without the back reference to the
deprecated/obsolete leaf.
E.g. wouldn't the following be sufficient to enforce the desired constraint?
leaf old-stuff {
status deprecated;
must not(../new-stuff);
}
leaf new-stuff {
}
Thanks,
Rob
On 18/01/2017 21:32, Phil Shafer wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
But marking definition as obsolete in one module cannot automatically
make definitions in *other* modules obsolete.
(*) _maybe_ 7950 can be interpreted in this way when it says:
If a definition is "current", it MUST NOT reference a "deprecated" or
"obsolete" definition within the same module
If you're in a good mood, you could argue that a child always
"references" its parent.
That's a massively deforming interpretation of "references".
I'm not even sure this is a good rule at all. Consider:
leaf old-stuff {
status deprecated;
must not(../new-stuff);
}
leaf new-stuff {
must not(../old-stuff);
}
My new-stuff definitely references old-stuff which is deprecated,
but this is a _good_ data model and should not be "MUST NOT"d out
of existence.
Thanks,
Phil
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
