On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM Qin Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > Agree with Andy, I am wondering whether masked-tag should be changed into > config-false node? > > If masked-tag is not client generated configuration or system generated > configuration, what it should be? System-state? > > >
I am not suggesting any changes to the module-tags module. Just follow the procedure in RFC 8407, sec. 4.23.3.1 Andy > -Qin > > *发件人:* netmod [mailto:[email protected]] *代表 *Andy Bierman > *发送时间:* 2019年10月4日 0:25 > *收件人:* Christian Hopps <[email protected]> > *抄送:* [email protected] > *主题:* Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:59 AM Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 3, 2019, at 11:30 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Chris, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> > >> Sent: 03 October 2019 16:16 > >> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09..txt > >> > >> [resending to include list cc] > >> > >>> On Oct 3, 2019, at 5:45 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Chris, > >>> > >>> As discussed offline, you have left out the "masked-tag" container in > >> the "modules-tags-state" module. > >> > >> One might read this as an objection that was discussed offline, but I > >> don't think you are objecting, you're just stating what happened, > correct? > > > > Correct, not objecting, although I might be about to 😉 > > > > Generally, I think that is what is available in "module-tags-state" > should be directly equivalent to what is available in the operational > datastore for servers that support NMDA. > > So is this how we're supposed to construct these deprecated state modules, > just copy all config true and config false nodes into a new module and mark > them all config false? If so fine. I will do that. > > > > > > IMO the deprecated state module only needs a config=false version of the > config=true NMDA nodes. > > Since config=true validation statements are not allowed to reference > config=false nodes it should > > always be possible to remove the config=false nodes from the deprecated > state module. > > > > Otherwise the config=false nodes show up twice for non-NMDA clients > because they can > > read the NMDA config=false nodes just fine. (The NMDA transition strategy > is vague and > > using the /yang-library tree to hide objects is too complicated, but that > is not in scope for module-tags.) > > > > > > Thanks, > Chris. > > > > Andy > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
