On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 12:49 PM Michal Vaško <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Eric, > > thanks for the answer. > > On Friday, April 02, 2021 15:43 CEST, "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > > > > This sounds like a tooling issue to me. I would expect that any augments > > would inherit the conditional nature of anything augmented. > > Perhaps, but there is nothing in the specification to hint this. On the > contrary, leafrefs, for example, explicitly require to be conditional on > the same set of if-features than their targets. But you are right, there is > no such requirements for augments. Still, if the feature is disabled and > the augment should be applied, since its target does not technically exist > in the schema, it cannot be found. That is the error our tools currently > produce. > > Maybe this is not clear enough in RFC 7950. This seems valid: container foo { if-feature X; leaf bar { type string; } } augment /foo { container Y; } The YANG syntax validation should be done as if all features are enabled. It is a tooling issue if this is rejected. This is clear because the augment-stmt argument specifies a schema node. Another related issue: container zed { leaf baz { type leafref { path /foo/bar; } } } This example is not clear because the path-stmt argument specifies a data node. Is it also valid YANG to have a leafref in an unconditional leaf point at an if-feature conditional leaf? Does leaf baz need "if-feature X" added? Is this a syntax error? A run-time error? Neither? Is it invalid or does leaf /zed/baz simply have an empty value set? Is it OK for a leafref node to have an empty value set? This corner case keeps coming up in real YANG modules so it would be great if the standard clarified this behavior. Andy > > If you disagree, perhaps a thread to the netmod alias would get you an > > 'official' answer on the proper behavior. > > I have sent the email to "netconf" because that is WG that published it > but no harm in adding a copy for "netmod". > > > Eric > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: netconf <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michal Vaško > > > Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 11:14 AM > > > To: netconf <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [netconf] YANG Push module errors > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > we are led to believe there is an error in the ietf-yang-push module > > published in > > > RFC 8641 but I wanted to discuss it here before submitting an errata. > > There are 2 > > > augments [1] on a notification that is conditional on "configured" > feature > > but > > > these 2 augments are not conditional. Having this feature disabled, we > > were not > > > able to load this module into our tools. Does anyone disagree with > this or > > with > > > submitting an errata? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Michal > > > > > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8641#page-48 and the next page > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > netconf mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > > _______________________________________________ > netconf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
