On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > I think itt is not realistic to say that datastores are optional. > > > > e.g. <enabled> leaf: If there is a standard way to enable/disable config > > then individual "enabled" leafs are redundant. However XPath (must/when) > > has no way to describe if the subtree is enabled (which is a > show-stopper) > > I may not understand what you are saying. From what I know, there are > implementations that allow to 'comment out' nodes and subtrees and > that work with clients in a backwards compatible way. > > > <foo-config> vs <foo-oper>. If the applied or operational datastore is > > assumed, > > then there is no need to model the redundant config-as-operstate. > > If this is left out of the model, then the datastore becomes mandatory. > > If it is left in the model, the datasore becomes redundant. > > > > The basic premise that these datastores are optional is flawed. > > One cannot design a YANG module assuming the datastores are present > > if they are in fact optional. > > The claim that all datastores are mandatory is equally flawed. > > correct -- nobody is saying that. The reason this is different is that the YANG objects are impacted. Candidate vs. running has no impact whatsoever on the set of YANG modules. The protocol is not self-selecting some objects and making other objects invisible. But if I want to model <foo-state>, I will soon have to decide to use <foo-state> and allow all protocols to read it or model get-state(foo) and require a different module for each protocol. /js > Andy > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
