Hi Balazs,
Thanks for the review and comments.
On 14/09/2017 16:44, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
See below !
On 2017-09-14 16:32, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
CH 4.4.) "Validation is performed on the contents of <intended>."
This to me means that default data is not considered at validation
Note that RFC 7950, section 6.4.1, says:
In the accessible tree, all leafs and leaf-lists with default values
in use exist (see Sections 7.6.1 and 7.7.2).
So defaults are taken into account when intended is validated.
BALAZS: Yes the two seem to contradict each other. This can be
understood in your way, however the current text is not clear enough.
I would add:
Validation is performed on the contents of <intended> (EXTENDED WITH
DEFAULT CONFIGURATION).
As an alternative suggestion, rather than saying contents of <intended>,
we could instead say something like "<intended>must always be a valid
configuration data tree.". Is that better? I would rather not talk
about "defaults for <intended> since that may imply that they are not
applicable to other configuration datastores". E.g. if <running> is
validated then you would also expect defaults to be considered. Ditto
for startup, candidate.
Thanks,
Rob
which would be a backwards incompatible change. Also if validation
does not consider system configured data that would allow cases like
multiple interfaces named lo0. One from <intended> one from system
configuration. IMHO while it is OK to violate uniqueness because of
remnant data, the above violation of uniqueness seems a bad idea.
If your system adds data to <running>, or to <intended>, it will be
validated.
Ch. 4.7) Is it allowed to violate uniqueness of key values? IMHO it
should not be.
Agreed. Note that the draft explicitly lists the constraints that can
be violated, and uniqueness of keys is not listed.
BALAZS: If that is the intent I would propose to explicitly state it.
For me it was non-trivial.
Can a a choice statement be violated? Having to existing branches at
the same time? It seems a semantic constraint to me. IMHO yes.
Can an if-feature be violated? If support has just changed and we
have some remnant config, I can very well imagine it violated.
Also here could you change
If a node in <operational> does not meet the syntactic constraints
then it cannot be returned
to
If a node in <operational> does not meet the syntactic constraints
then it MUST NOT be returned
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
