Hi Shiya,
> On Nov 13, 2024, at 10:09 AM, Shiya Ashraf (Nokia)
> <shiya.ashraf=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kent,
>
> Sorry but I miss the point you made with the below statement:
>
> “As a contributor, I feel that the concern is unwarranted. My belief/hope is
> that templates are not themselves validated when defined, but rather only the
> fully expanded/flattened results of templates are validated.“
>
> Shiya>> For mandatories, the problem that was highlighted was more about
> following the DRY approach for templates. For instance, in the below example
> copied from #3, slide 6, assume if the ‘mtu’ was defined as a mandatory data
> node with in a non-presence container, you will be forced to add it anyway
> for each interface in the below example and thus loosing the advantage of
> templating for these special data nodes. Isn’t it?
I don’t understand your comment, but I will state my worldview (as a
contributor) which is:
- any data model can be templatized (including already published YANG
modules)
- these data models may contain `mandatory` and `default`
statements
- templates are NOT themselves ever validated
- only the post-expanded/flattened result is validated (e.g.,
in <intended>)
FWIW, I was referring to Slide 8 of Template Idea #1.
K.
> <interfaces>
> <interface yt:apply-templates=“set_physical_mtu”>
> <name>GigabitEthernet0/0/0/0</name>
> </interface>
> <interface>
> <name>GigabitEthernet0/0/0/1</name>
> </interface>
> </interfaces>
>
> Thanks,
> Shiya
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- netmod@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to netmod-le...@ietf.org
