Reshad,
> Should it be ignored or rejected?
Ignored, IMO. A rejection policy would bring little value, but lead to
complications for clients and servers alike.
> Also not keen in foo-operational, since it’s in contradiction to NMDA’s goals.
+1
/jan
> From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Jan Lindblad
> <j...@tail-f.com>
> Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:53 AM
> To: Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz>
> Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] datastore-specific constraints
>
> Lada,
>
> Maybe you could just skip the when and explain the behavior in the
> description? E.g.
>
> leaf foo {
> ...
> description "Foo controls bla, bla.
> Any configured value will be ignored when auto-foo is true.";
> }
>
> Best Regards,
> /jan
>
>
>> On 12 Dec 2018, at 15:33, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz
>> <mailto:lho...@nic.cz>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in some cases, constraints expressed with "when" or "must" may only be
>> intended for configuration datastores. A typical example is an
>> auto-negotiable parameter:
>>
>> leaf auto-foo {
>> type boolean;
>> default true;
>> description "If true, parameter 'foo' will be auto-negotiated.";
>> }
>> leaf foo {
>> when "../auto-foo = 'false'";
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> This means that if auto-foo is true, it is impossible to configure the
>> foo parameter. However, even with auto-foo = true, it is desirable to
>> see the auto-negotiated value in <operational>, so, ideally, the "when"
>> constraint should not apply in <operational>.
>>
>> How can this logic be modelled under NMDA? Is an extra leaf
>> "foo-operational" needed?
>>
>> Thanks, Lada
>>
>> --
>> Ladislav Lhotka
>> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
