Hi Lada,
>> Yes, the YANG would have to define schema for both the template and >> expanded forms. > >Are you saying that running and intended (may) have different schemas? >The draft indicates that only intended is subject to validation. Either >way, it significantly changes the rules of the game because validation >in RFC 7950 is bound to running. I've been assuming that there is only one configuration schema, but that the template schema wouldn't apply in the intended datastore. This might be an academic distinction if <edit/copy-config>, or RESTCONF's unified datastore, only act on the running datastore. Yes, we'd want to support read-only operations on 'intended', but I'm not entirely sure about read-write operations, including the <lock> or even the <validate> operations. Regarding moving validation from running to intended, I think that Section 6.3 might be just poorly worded. At least, I took it to mean that semantic validation conceptually takes place after the system has removed inactive data and flattened templates. Not only does it seem intuitive, but it also helps simplify must/when/etc. expressions, as they only need to target the expanded/flattened template paths. > I cannot help myself: we need to remove all dependecies on protocols, > specific datastores and data representation (encoding) from the YANG > spec in order to make it generally applicable. I made a similar comment recently here: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg12356.html. Read the remainder of the thread to see the response there. That said, I definitely think that a 7950bis should remove all of the XML and NETCONF encoding text in RFC7950. A number of these kinds of changes are being tracked here: https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues. Kent // as an author _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
