> That said I do not think this optional information fields modelling technique > was the intention in the majority of published modules that do not specify > mandatory-stmt in config=false nodes. It is just that RFC7950 has > mandatory=false specified as default and this works better for config=true > nodes then config=false nodes.
I tend to agree. Furthermore, I feel that it is best practice to specify "mandatory true” when it is the intention that the “config false” node is always provided. There are effectively three kinds of “config false” leafs: 1) opstate data 2) rpc/action replies 3) notifications IMO, the “best practice” holds in all three cases, but it might be interesting to consider each in turn. Note that I wrote “intention” above. It is understood that a system may not be able to provide the “mandatory” node, but I wonder how much of that statement is supported by data. K.
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
