Hello Andy, Looking through the use-cases I think the producer will always know whether it includes default values or not. This is the case if the instance data set is produced by the server e.g. in UC4, UC5, or if it created by some design activity UC1, UC2, UC3, UC8. (UC6 and UC7 are so broad and loosely defined it is hard to say much about them.)
Once the producer knows whether defaults are included or not it can set the
include-defaults accordingly, so the default value for include-defaults is not
so important. However, I chose trim as the default because:
* during the WGLC the draft explicitly stated that defaults SHOULD NOT be
included and the WG was happy/ok with that
* IMHO It is better to have short files,
Note, I used the term producer, as IMHO the above is true in all cases whether
the server produces the file or some design activity creates the server.
Regards Balazs
From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: 2021. július 8., csütörtök 19:16
To: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf
Hi,
The module has this object:
leaf includes-defaults {
type enumeration {
enum report-all {
value 1;
description
"All data nodes SHOULD be included independent of
any default values.";
}
enum trim {
value 2;
description
"Data nodes that have a default defined and where
the actual value is the default value SHOULD
NOT be included.";
}
enum explicit {
value 3;
description
"Data nodes that have a default defined and where
the actual value is the default value SHOULD NOT be
included. However, if the actual value was set by
a NETCONF client or other management application
by the way of an explicit management operation the
data node SHOULD be included.";
}
}
default trim;
The draft is extremely server-centric, like most IETF standards, but this
leaf is too server-centric to ignore.
Consider the possibility that the source of the file is NOT a NETCONF server.
This data may not be known so the default of "trim" may not be correct.
IMO this leaf is noise because any tool that knows the schema will also
know the YANG defaults. The solution is incomplete anyway because
the presence of a leaf that has a YANG default is not enough.
The "report-all-tagged" mode must be used to identify defaults.
IMO this leaf should be removed, but at least add an enum called "unknown".
Andy
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
