Inline Tom Petch
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Bierman" <[email protected]> To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 3:33 PM On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:32 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund > > Sent: 26 September 2019 08:45 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementation about > > ‘when’ > > > > > > > > > > It also says in 8.2: > > > > > > > > o If a request modifies a configuration data node such that any > > > > node's "when" expression becomes false, then the node in the > > data > > > > tree with the "when" expression is deleted by the server. > > > > > > Right. But the request won't modify a configuration data node because > > > it is rejected. So the premise of the above implication doesn't hold, > > > and the conclusion doesn't apply. > > > > With the same logic you can claim conformance if you reject a request to > > create nodes under a case if another case is active. I think it is quite > > clear that this auto-deletion is part of the spec, and something clients > > can rely on. If the intention had been that this was optional to > > implement, it would have been clearly stated, and there would have been > > mechanism present for clients to detect this. > > > I don't like the 'when' behaviour, I would have rather that clients were > forced to delete the configuration explicitly (or pass an option for an > implicit delete). I hear the opposite from customers. They insist that the server implement every last detail of the machine-readable YANG, especially when-stmt auto-deletion. The auto-cleanup is seen as a feature. > However, I do agree with Martin & Juergen, that the intent of the spec is > that servers perform the 'when' auto-delete behaviour, and clients must be > able to rely on compliant servers behaving this way. > agreed. It is hard to argue against consistent, predicable server behavior for datastore editing. (NP containers and NMDA are also causing problems, and should be fixed in yang-next if that ever happens). <tp> Andy This caught my eye. What is the problem with NMDA? Anything specific? My own problem is that it is different to what has been proposed as suitable for the previous 12 years but I doubt if many customers would think that. Tom Petch Thanks, > Rob > > Andy > > > > > /martin > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
