Hi, > 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. [Bart Bogaert] Ok, so you are looking for a solution that refers to an entry in the state tree. I always thought that one could not refer from config to state but it seems I misunderstood this since this is exactly what you are proposing. > 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. > [Bart Bogaert] If we leave it as a string it would mean that an > external application would have to check whether the value of the > string actually corresponds to a component that should exist (in the > case of a non-system-controlled parent)? So are you ok with a leafref to state? [Bart Bogaert] Since that seems possible this would solve the problem. I'm checking this with our people. Regards, Bart /martin
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
