On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:49 +0100, Per Hedeland wrote: > On 2018-03-05 15:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:26 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> 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.
It is not a default - if a choice has "config false", then no descendant can be "config true". One of the benefits of having rw/ro in the ascii tree is to see where a state data subtree actually starts. Lada > > --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 > > > netmod@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
