On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 17:34 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > if we have > > > > > > > > augment "/target/node" { > > > > when "..."; > > > > ... > > > > } > > > > > > > > is the "when" expression supposed to be evaluated separately in each > > > > > > datastore, > > > > and the augment applied only in those datastores where the result is > true? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > But then it cannot be guaranteed that the schema for <operational> is a > superset > > of the schema of configuration datastores - the when expression can > evaluate to > > false in <operational> but true in <intended>. > > > > For me, its still the same schema - a when expression does not change > my notion of 'schema'. > Agreed, but it changes the validation results against the schema. As Martin pointed out, we already have this separate validation issue in <candidate>. This is not a problem though because only <running> is required to pass validation tests. I think NMDA works out fine because the YANG validation of config=true nodes is done in <intended>, not in <operational>. Only the config=false nodes would be validated in <operational>, done by the client, not the server. (Server implementations do not validate their own output). > /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] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
