On 2018-03-05 15:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:26 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So it seems the running code got it right. ;-) >>>> >>>> As the author of that code, I think that was purely by accident... >>>> >>>> But I'm not convinced it is the correct solution. We have one example >>>> in the other thread where someone was confused by the "rw" flag and >>>> thought that it implied that the node would be present in the data >>>> tree. >>>> >>> >>> So what does rw mean? >>> >>> (i) The schema node has a rw property. >>> (ii) The schema node can be instantiated and the instantiated data node >>> has a rw property. >>> >>> I think it is difficult to have both at the same time. If the tree is >>> a representation of schema nodes, then (i) seems to make more >>> sense. That said, the explanation in 2.6 is somewhat vague since it >>> says 'data' and not 'nodes' (like everywhere else): >>> >>> OLD: >>> >>> <flags> is one of: >>> rw for configuration data >>> ro for non-configuration data, output parameters to rpcs >>> and actions, and notification parameters >>> >>> NEW: >>> >>> <flags> is one of: >>> rw for configuration data nodes >>> ro for non-configuration data nodes, output parameters to rpcs >>> and actions, and notification parameters >> >> I think this is ok. But that means that we also have to add: >> >> -- for a choice or case node >> >> But in order to be consistent, we should probably have: >> >> -- for a choice, case, input or output node > > But unlike the three other statements, "choice" can have the config > substatement, so "rw/ro" makes sense there.
I don't think so - that config statement does not a define a property of the choice node (it can obviously neither be read nor written), only a default for descendant data nodes, as described in section 7.21.1 of RFC 7950. --Per > Lada > >> >> >> This means that the correct tree syntax for choice and case will be: >> >> +-- (subnet)? >> +-- :(prefix-length) >> | +--rw prefix-length? uint8 >> +-- :(netmask) >> +--rw netmask? yang:dotted-quad >> >> >> /martin >> >> >>> The document (as far as I searched for it) does not clearly say that >>> 'node' means 'schema node'. In hindsight, it might have been useful to >>> explicitely import terminology from RFC 7950 and to use it carefully >>> (RFC 7950 has 'schema node' and 'data node' but here we largely talk >>> about 'nodes' - and my assumption is that this means 'schema nodes'.) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
