>> If we pick the former, it will not be possible to configure a component with >> a system controlled parent (unless you also add the system controlled parent >> to the configuration). >> [Bart Bogaert] Is there a reason to only have this parent in the state tree >> and not in the config tree? > > I am not sure I understand the question. Suppose the config tree is > empty, and the system boots and populates the state tree with all > detected harwdare. Next, a client would like to pre-provision a > module in a chassis that exists in state. If the leafref is to the > config tree, the client would have to create both the chassis and the > module in the config tree, since the leafef would otherwise fail to > validate. > >> If we pick the latter you will not get any validation (since it has to be >> require-instance false). >> >> It is fine w/ me to change the type string to a leafref of the former type. > > Correction: I am fine with changing the string to a leafref to state.
This conversation seems to mirrors the we had regarding the i2rs topologoy model, where we landed on a leafref in 'running' could point to a config true node in 'operational-state', as to apply configuration to, for instance, system-discovered underlays...or do I misunderstand, is the intention here for the leafref to point to a config false node? Kent // contributor _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
