Hi, I've asked about evaluating must statements on unconfigured non-presence containers here before, but realise I never got a definitive answer on whether the clarification in the YANG 1.1 issues list actually applies to YANG 1.0, or only YANG 1.1:
YANG 1.0 XPATH context: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020#section-6.4.1 * No mention of non-presence containers YANG 1.0 errata: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6020 * No mention of non-presence containers YANG 1.1 Issues list: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html#sec-42 * Clarification of handling of non-presence containers for XPATH context / validation YANG 1.1 XPATH context: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-6.4.1 * 'If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in the accessible tree.' As you can see from the links above, the errata for YANG 1.0 does NOT include the clarification, whereas the text of YANG 1.1 (RFC 7950) does. Thanks, William
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
