I have a question on the example in RFC8641 under 3.7 Streaming Updates

In Figure 2, an example of a `push-change-update` shows a `replace` operation, critically 
perhaps, with a <target> of the root container `/ietf-interfaces:interfaces`. The 
value is specified also starting at the root node <interfaces> and a specific list 
object with key name `eth0` is given; the only leaf given other than the key is 
`oper-status` for the specific interface.

```
<notification xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:notification:1.0">
  <eventTime>2017-10-25T08:22:33.44Z</eventTime>
  <push-change-update
       xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-push">
    <id>89</id>
    <datastore-changes>
      <yang-patch>
        <patch-id>0</patch-id>
        <edit>
          <edit-id>edit1</edit-id>
          <operation>replace</operation>
          <target>/ietf-interfaces:interfaces</target>
          <value>
            <interfaces
                 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
              <interface>
                <name>eth0</name>
                <oper-status>down</oper-status>
              </interface>
            </interfaces>
          </value>
        </edit>
      </yang-patch>
    </datastore-changes>
  </push-change-update>
 </notification>
```

This primarily came up b/c I'm trying to figure out what format the <value> should 
take and what the <target> should be (in my case actually for RESTCONF).

Anyway my question is this, doesn't this example direct the receiver to delete 
all other interfaces and also delete (or return to default) all the rest of the 
state in the `eth0` list object while only setting the `oper-state` value? This 
is not the intention of the document I don't believe, I think the document is 
trying to show how to replace the single oper-state value not delete all other 
interface state.

With RESTCONF transactions normally you provide the data "rooted" at the given target 
resource. With NETCONF and XML many (most/all?) times I believe the data is rooted at the actual root 
of the module. But even if the <value> data is correct here, shouldn't the <target> 
actually point at the `oper-state` leaf itself?

Thanks,
Chris.

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- netmod@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to netmod-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to