Hi, The problem is that this behavior was underspecified in YANG 1. Fixed in YANG 1.1, but it means that you can't expect the behavior for YANG 1 modules to be the same in different servers.
/martin "Ivory, William" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I've asked about evaluating must statements on unconfigured > non-presence containers here before, but realise I never got a > definitive answer on whether the clarification in the YANG 1.1 issues > list actually applies to YANG 1.0, or only YANG 1.1: > > YANG 1.0 XPATH context: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020#section-6.4.1 > > * No mention of non-presence containers > > YANG 1.0 errata: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6020 > > * No mention of non-presence containers > > YANG 1.1 Issues list: > http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html#sec-42 > > * Clarification of handling of non-presence containers for XPATH context > * / validation > > YANG 1.1 XPATH context: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-6.4.1 > > * 'If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence > * container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in > * the accessible tree.' > > As you can see from the links above, the errata for YANG 1.0 does NOT > include the clarification, whereas the text of YANG 1.1 (RFC 7950) > does. > > Thanks, > > William _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
