On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 11:34:02AM +, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
wrote:
>
> I agree but the fact is that some of the BBF models have constructions like
> that and we were wondering whether this should not be mentioned in the
> guildelines document. Normally a server can't set
On 06/03/2018 12:04, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
Rob,
Just to clarify: in this case we are not changing the model, it is the
same model but the device SW in release X is not supporting the
feature and in release Y it is. Supporting the feature results in
adding that part of
Rob,
Just to clarify: in this case we are not changing the model, it is the same
model but the device SW in release X is not supporting the feature and in
release Y it is. Supporting the feature results in adding that part of the
tree to the configuration that is related to the feature and
Arguably the guidelines, or YANG, should say "don't allow this" ;-)
I think that what you are describing is just another instance of "don't
augment with a mandatory node rule", or "only backwards compatible
changes revisions should be made to a published YANG module".
The key reasoning
Presumably you will have to decide on a sensible default value to use.
What value will your actual device use after the software upgrade? That should
be the value it stores in the data tree when performing the upgrade.
From: netmod
Hi,
We have a question with respect to YANG models using features. Assume that a
part of the model is defined under a feature and that this feature-dependent
part defines a leaf as mandatory.
module servers {
namespace "http://www.example.com/servers;;
prefix servers;
import