On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 9:26 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> My understanding is that a returns the leafs that exist and that
> are not filtered.
>
>
Yes -- this is what clients expect.
It is not clear that real client apps rely too much on YANG validatio
My understanding is that a returns the leafs that exist and that
are not filtered.
/js
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:35:28PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello Juergen,
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.6.5 states:
>
> If "mandatory" is "true", the behavior of the constraint depen
Hello Juergen,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.6.5 states:
If "mandatory" is "true", the behavior of the constraint depends on
the type of the leaf's closest ancestor node in the schema tree that
is not a non-presence container (see Section 7.5.1):
o If no such ancestor ex
Hi all,
After some feedback on the WG mailing list and further discussions on the
weekly versioning calls, we are proposing that any clarification (above what
7950 describes) of how changes to "config false" nodes may or may not differ
from "config true" nodes is out of scope for our versioning
YANG Versioning Weekly Call Minutes - 2021-04-20
Activity in the past week that we should discuss:
- Andy's & Juergen's replies to minutes re state rules
- Rob's updated options for state
BL -> Address Juergen's comment on mandatory in state on the mailing list
JS -> Bring decision about state ba
