Hi Andy, >> Andy - about use cases. Here is a problem we're trying to address: >> >> >> >> There are at least several major router implementations that have this >> concept of "hidden config" (i.e. list entries that can be referenced in a >> leafref by explicit user config, but those list entries are not returned in >> a <get-config>). >> >> >> Clearly not in compliance with RFC 7950. > > Andy, can you please point to the part in RFC 7950 that says offline > validation must be supported? I believe that this "common understanding” > actually lacks a basis, and an equally-valid interoperation is that the > <running> must be valid *on the server* vis-a-vis it actually validating > <intended>. > > > I think sec. 6.4 and sec. 8 are clear enough how validation of the <running> > datastore is done. > Leafrefs in <running> are not allowed to point to a node outside of <running>. >
I don’t discount the “accessible tree” angle. The focus on if the server can’t validate <running> vis-a-vis <intended>…. As an author of NMDA, I know that is was/is the goal to let this be true - how else could template ever work, right? K.
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
