Hi Robert,
An example has been shown in the "Appendix B. Example YANG Library Instance
for a Basic Server"
<schema>
<name>config-schema</name>
<module-set>config-modules</module-set>
</schema>
<schema>
<name>state-schema</name>
<module-set>config-modules</module-set>
<module-set>state-modules</module-set>
</schema>
<datastore>
<name>ds:startup</name>
<schema>config-schema</schema>
</datastore>
<datastore>
<name>ds:running</name>
<schema>config-schema</schema>
</datastore>
<datastore>
<name>ds:operational</name>
<schema>state-schema</schema>
</datastore>
This example shows <operational> having state-modules, but <running> has only
configuration modules. This and introduction statement, convinced me the
<operational> and <running> will have different schema in a Basic server.
Also what does it mean that state-modules have been "implemented" in the
<running> data-store ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 29 May 2018 16:28
To: Rohit R Ranade <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06 deviation query
Hi Rohit,
If you have a module, "mod-state-only", that only contains "config false" nodes
then either of the following approaches is valid:
(1) You include the "mod-state-only" module in the schema for both conventional
datastores and <operational>. All config false leaves will be ignored anyway
for the configuration datastores.
(1) You define separate schema for the conventional datastores vs operational.
"mod-state-only" isn't present in the schema for the conventional datastores,
but is present in <operational>.
Either approach is valid, and I don't recall the YANG library bis draft stating
any preference.
Thanks,
Rob
On 29/05/2018 11:44, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
Hi Robert,
The Introduction section has :
"
Furthermore, the operational state datastore may support non-configurable YANG
modules in addition to
the YANG modules supported by conventional configuration datastores.
"
I infer that in the new Yang-library structure, the schema for "conventional"
data-stores should not include the non-configurable YANG module. Is my
inference correct ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 29 May 2018 15:28
To: Rohit R Ranade <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06 deviation query
Hi Rohit,
On 29/05/2018 10:35, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
Hi All,
Consider the below YANG tree, which contains both "rw" and "ro" nodes.
module: ietf-interfaces
+--rw interfaces
| +--rw interface* [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw description? string
| +--rw type identityref
| +--rw enabled? boolean
| +--rw link-up-down-trap-enable? enumeration {if-mib}?
| +--ro admin-status enumeration {if-mib}?
| +--ro oper-status enumeration
| +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--ro if-index int32 {if-mib}?
| +--ro phys-address? yang:phys-address
| +--ro higher-layer-if* interface-ref
>From what I understand, in the new yang-library structure the schema for
><operational> data-store will have the complete YANG tree. The schema for
><running> will need to add deviations with "not-supported" for all the "ro"
>nodes for this module ?
No need for the deviations for <running>. <running> only contains the "config
true" parts of the schema.
So, for a normal, NMDA compliant server, the same schema can be used for all
datastores.
Thanks,
Rob
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
