Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 22/12/2016 10:00, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz > > <mailto:lho...@nic.cz>> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 Dec 2016, at 07:22, Randy Presuhn > > <randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu > > <mailto:randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi - > > > > > > On 12/21/2016 3:55 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > >> <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de > > <mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> > > >> <mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de > > <mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>>> wrote: > > > ... > > >> Perhaps I am blinded by the way @deprecate or __attribute__ > > >> ((deprecated)) or [[deprecated]] work in various programming > > >> languages. All these annotations do not deprecate my code, > > they just > > >> cause the generation of warnings so that I get aware of the > > issue and > > >> can do my homework. > > >> > > >> > > >> There are no protocols that let you manage orphaned data nodes > > >> without any parent. No way to represent it in XML or JSON either. > > >> No way to specify a RESTCONF target resource that leaves out > > >> some intermediate data nodes. > > > > > > Deprecating (or obsoleting) a definition does not orphan data nodes. > > > Perhaps I'm blinded by the way SNMP works, but it seems to me that > > > a robust client will need to be able to process data corresponding > > > to deprecated (or obsolete) definitions. Likewise, developers > > > of server-side software may find themselves in situations where > > > supporting obsolete definitions is a commercial necessity. Things > > > certainly played out that way in the SNMP world. I agree with > > Juergen > > > that tool-generated warnings seem to be the correct way to go. > > > > I agree that making a node deprecated or obsolete doesn't mean > > that its descendants are orphaned, it just means they cannot be > > current, and then "current" shouldn't be the default status for > > them - also because the descendants may come from other modules > > (via groupings and augments) that cannot be changed. > > > > Even if the default status is inherited, tools can still generate > > warnings. A data modeller can decide whether and where it makes > > sense to have the "status" statement explicitly, but isn't forced > > to do it everywhere. > > > > > > > > NETCONF and RESTCONF have no mechanisms for accessing data other than > > top-down from the top-level YANG data node to the target node. > > Removing an ancestor node from the server implementation effectively > > removes > > the entire subtree from the implementation. (The value of the YANG > > status-stmt > > of the descendant nodes has nothing to do with it) > > I agree that this certainly seems to be the case if a node is marked > as obsolete. It seems that it implicitly forces all child nodes to be > obsolete as well regardless of which module they were defined in.
No I don't think this is correct. If module B augment X in module A, and X is obsolete, it does NOT mean that the augmented nodes in B are automatically obsolete. However, in an implementation that doesn't implement X, the augmented nodes from B are obviously also not implemented. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
