Hi Kent, > -----Original Message----- > From: Kent Watsen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 8:39 PM > To: Xufeng Liu <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3- > topology-08: (with COMMENT) > > [reducing distribution] > > > Hi Xufeng, > > > Assume the following model: > > > > +--rw nodes > > +--rw node [id] > > +--rw id string > > +--rw under-lay-attribute-a ??? > > +---ro nodes-state > > +--ro node [id] > > +--ro id string > > +--ro attribute-a string > > > > I cannot define the under-lay-attribute-a to reference attribute-a as: > > type leafref { > > path "../node/attribute-a"' > > } > > > True, but maybe it could be: > > type leafref { > path "../node/attribute-a" > require-instance false; > description > "In the case when the referenced instance is not a configured > object, the system may resolve it by looking for it under the > /nodes-state node. As the referenced operational state data > may have a lifecycle independent of configuration, this results > in an effect much like pre-provisioning interfaces in RFC 7223."; > } [Xufeng] I think that "require-instance false" does not help here. The validation for path "../node/attribute-a" still fails because "attribute-a" does not exist under /nodes/node/.
> > This would be cleaner in a revised-datastores oriented model, as then it would > be obvious that the list's key space spanned across both datastores. > > > Kent > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
