> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz>
> Sent: 26 June 2019 08:01
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] ?= ?==?utf-8?q? mandatory choice with non-presence
> container cas
>
> On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 13:49 +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
> > > Sent: 25 June 2019 14:14
> > > To: netmod@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] ?= ?==?utf-8?q? mandatory choice with
> > > non-presence container cas
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 13:59 +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Michal Vaško <mva...@cesnet.cz> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > actually, I have used model with the container TOP just for
> > > > > simplification, I have encountered the issue while implementing
> > > > > ietf-ssh-server model from its current draft. I have created the
> > > > > container "users" [1] without any "user" list instances. Now,
> > > > > you may argue that this is still not a valid use-case because
> > > > > there are no users but I only tried to satisfy the condition.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I think that this list (user) should have a "min-elements 1".
> > > > I think that matches the i ntent.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, the "users" container actually becomes a P-container:
> > > its presence indicates that the corresponding case is selected.
> >
> > I don't think that this makes it a P-container.
>
> Not formally, according to the current rules, but effectively "the
> container itself carries some meaning" (sec. 7.5.1).
In a data tree, I think that the only meaning that an NP-container conveys is
the existence of a descendent leaf, leaf-list, p-container, anydata, or anyxml
data node.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > It might make
> > > sense for an admin to select this case even before any users are
> > > configured.
> >
> > Sure, the "users" container could have been marked as having presence
> > in the YANG model.
> >
> >
> > > This example also exposes the drawback of the XML representation -
> > > it cannot distinguish between an empty list and nothing. In JSON,
> > > the problems of this thread could potentially be circumvented by
> > > configuring
> > >
> > > "users" : {
> > > "user" : [
> > > ]
> > > }
> >
> > I don't think that an empty list "exists" in a configuration
> > datastore, i.e. I
>
> I am not sure about this, it possibly depends on an implementation.
Perhaps, but I argue that this is probably the only robust interpretation,
particularly given that XML cannot represent a list that exists with no entries.
Thanks,
Rob
>
> Lada
>
> > don't think that it should impart any meaning, in that regard is seems
> > somewhat like an NP-container.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > > Lada
> > >
> > > > /martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > There are some users
> > > > > on the system but they are generated into the configuration
> > > > > on-demand when operational data is requested.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Michal
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server
> > > > > -14#
> > > > > page-22
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 11:08 CEST, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)"
> > > > > <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Michal,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is not the printing of the data that makes it valid/invalid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think that your input data was ever valid, because
> > > > > > "container C" doesn't satisfy the mandatory statement because
> > > > > > it isn't a real data node in the tree - it is instantiated
> > > > > > when required and may be deleted when it is no longer required.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I.e. your model has been designed such that it can never be
> > > satisfied.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If your model was instead:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > container TOP {
> > > > > > leaf L {
> > > > > > type empty;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > choice A {
> > > > > > mandatory true;
> > > > > > container C {
> > > > > > leaf L2 {
> > > > > > type empty;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then this data is valid:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <TOP>
> > > > > > <L/>
> > > > > > <C>
> > > > > > <L2/>
> > > > > > </C>
> > > > > > </TOP>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But this data is not:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <TOP>
> > > > > > <L/>
> > > > > > </TOP>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nor is this, which is directly equivalent to the one above,
> > > > > > because the <C/> container doesn't really exist if it doesn't
> > > > > > have a child node present.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <TOP>
> > > > > > <L/>
> > > > > > <C/>
> > > > > > </TOP>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Rob
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Michal Vaško <mva...@cesnet.cz>
> > > > > > > Sent: 24 June 2019 18:15
> > > > > > > To: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>; netmod
> > > > > > > <netmod@ietf.org>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] ?= mandatory choice with non-presence
> > > > > > > container cas
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Andy,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Monday, June 24, 2019 19:11 CEST, Andy Bierman
> > > > > > > <a...@yumaworks.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michal Vaško
> > > > > > > > <mva...@cesnet.cz>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > > > > > I think there is a problem in the RFC because using only
> > > > > > > > > allowed steps I got invalid data from initially valid
> data.
> > > > > > > > > That cannot be
> > > > > > > correct.
> > > > > > > > No. See sec. 7.5.7
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If a non-presence container does not have any child
> > > > > > > > nodes,
> > > the
> > > > > > > > container may or may not be present in the XML encoding.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just because your retrieval does not contain the
> > > > > > > > NP-container, that does not mean the NP-container was not
> > > > > > > > present in the server for the mandatory-stmt validation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree, but these valid data were correctly printed into
> > > > > > > invalid data. I do not think printing is allowed to change
> > > > > > > the validity of data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michal
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Michal
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 24, 2019 18:52 CEST, "Rob Wilton
> (rwilton)"
> > > > > > > > > < rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Michal,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My thoughts:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > According to 7.5.1:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In the first style, the container has no meaning of
> > > > > > > > > > its own,
> > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > only to contain child nodes. In particular, the
> > > > > > > > > > presence of the
> > > > > > > > > > container node with no child nodes is semantically
> > > > > > > > > > equivalent to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > absence of the container node. YANG calls this
> > > > > > > > > > style a
> > > > > > > > > > "non-
> > > > > > > presence
> > > > > > > > > > container". This is the default style.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hence your request (because the NP container does not
> > > > > > > > > > have any
> > > > > > > > > > children)
> > > > > > > > > is equivalent to:
> > > > > > > > > > <TOP>
> > > > > > > > > > <L/>
> > > > > > > > > > </TOP>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > which fails the "mandatory" check.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Rob
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of
> > > > > > > > > > > Michal Vaško
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: 24 June 2019 17:39
> > > > > > > > > > > To: netmod <netmod@ietf.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [netmod] mandatory choice with non-presence
> > > > > > > > > > > container case
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > I have encountered a situation that I think is not
> > > > > > > > > > > covered by RFC
> > > > > > > > > 7950. My
> > > > > > > > > > > specific use-case was as follows.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > model:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > container TOP {
> > > > > > > > > > > leaf L {
> > > > > > > > > > > type empty;
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > choice A {
> > > > > > > > > > > mandatory true;
> > > > > > > > > > > container C;
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > data:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > <TOP>
> > > > > > > > > > > <L/>
> > > > > > > > > > > <C/>
> > > > > > > > > > > </TOP>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Parsing was successful, but printing these data back
> > > > > > > > > > > to XML
> > > > > > > produced:
> > > > > > > > > > > <TOP>
> > > > > > > > > > > <L/>
> > > > > > > > > > > </TOP>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > and parsing this correctly failed with missing
> > > > > > > > > > > mandatory
> > > choice.
> > > > > > > > > According
> > > > > > > > > > > to section 7.5.7 [1], I think the C container could
> > > > > > > > > > > be omitted but the whole situation does not seem
> correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for any
> > > > > > > input.
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Michal
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.5.7
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka
> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
