Presumably a device is free to not implement an optional config=false node if that node would never be returned in a response anyway - as this will make no externally visible difference.
However, if the model states or implies that the node is present under certain conditions (for example, the node is always present for Ethernet ports), and the device can meet those conditions (i.e. it has an Ethernet port), then the device must implement the node or it does not conform to the model. Alex ________________________________ From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Andy Bierman <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 14 June 2017 7:30 a.m. To: Ladislav Lhotka Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Andy Bierman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> writes: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 10:55:20AM +0000, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - >> BE/Antwerp) wrote: >> > >> > We have a question regarding the statistics container as defined in the >> > interfaces-state model. This container defines one mandatory leaf >> > (discontinuity-time) while all other leafs are optional. What is the >> > rationale behind this leaf being mandatory and not an optional field? >> > >> > It does not make a lot of sense to return a discontinuity-time value and >> no >> > counters if none of the counters are relevant for a specific interface. >> > >> > Another alternative could be to add, via a deviation, a when clause to >> the >> > container indicating for which ifType(s) the container is (or is not) >> > present. But that would lead to not supporting the IETF interfaces model >> to >> > the full extent. >> > >> >> The discontinuity-time is relevant for _any_ counter associated with >> an interface, regardless whether the counter is defined in the >> interfaces model or elsewhere. I have a hard time to imagine an >> interface that has zero counters. >> >> > The mandatory-stmt is very confusing for config=false nodes. Mandatory=true > means > an <rpc-reply> must contain an instance of the mandatory leaf. I don't think it is that confusing. RFC 7950 defines what a valid data tree means and "mandatory" are among the constraints. I agree though that in terms of a management protocol it means different things for config true and false data, but this is true also for default values and maybe other YANG concepts as well. > > Mandatory=false does not mean optional-to-implement although it sure > looks that way for config=false nodes. Only if-feature can make a node > optional to implement. I don't think this interpretation is supported by any text in the YANG spec. State data nodes that are optional needn't be implemented. RFC 7950, sec 5.6 (Conformance) does not support your interpretation. It defines basic behavior, optional (via features), and deviations as the only mechanisms affecting conformance. Lada > Andy > > > /js > > > Andy > > -- >> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany >> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
