Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Maybe it is too early for NMDA to be making lots of rules about how > > > > > YANG works with new (and unimplemented) datastores. > > > > > > > > Juniper has the equivalent of <intended> already. I think others said > > they had > > > > something like it as well.
Yes, we have that as well. (No template expansion, but removal of inactive nodes). > If I can only do YANG validation on expanded templates in <intended>, does > that mean > it is impossible to do YANG validation on the templates themselves in > <running>? > The template subtree can only use YANG constraints on external structures > in <intended> > and not refer to itself in anyway (in <running>)? Note that the architecture draft does not specify any templating mechanism, it merely points out that templating is a mechanism that _can_ influence intended. When/if such a mechanism is designed, it needs to work out all these details. /martin > > The RD draft sure has a lot of normative details for something that does > not use RFC 2119 > terminology at all. I didn't know a Standards Track document could omit > these terms. > Architecture documents are usually Informational. > > IMO the RD draft should not mention YANG or XPath at all. > That should be moved to an update to RFC 7950. > Those parts need more work anyway. The ARCH can move forward > without any dependence on YANG details. > > > > > Kent // contributor > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
