> So, the suggested solution would be to not have validation > of information, but simply have misconfigured stuff that > violates integrity constraints never show up in the state tree.
A leafref with require-instance false, even if pointing to a path in the configuration, effectively disables validation. Still, I think a leafref is better than just a description statement. > Perhaps this is the best that YANG can support today, although > I still find this not very satisfying. At a minimum, it would > be good if the framework would support an indication whether > the configured topology information went into effect or not. The revised-datastore solution is intended to provide a way to show this. See draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs. > The implication is that a client will need to achieve this now > by retrieving the corresponding state tree after each > configuration operation (and if the configuration would not > show correspondingly in the state tree, troubleshoot to see > what's wrong). So, if this is taken as design pattern, it > would be good to introduce operations to support that. See draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs. > Likewise, it would be good to have a "diffing" operation > in which state tree and configuration tree are checked for > differences and discrepancies are reported (e.g. config not > in state, and possibly vice versa). See opstate-reqs, requirement 2-C. > These should probably > be added as requirements for I2Rs and the next revision of > the overall YANG+associated protocols framework. Sure, but I don't think this is needed, as we already have the opstate-reqs draft. Kent _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
