Hi Eric, thanks for the answer.
On Friday, April 02, 2021 15:43 CEST, "Eric Voit (evoit)" <ev...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Michal, > > This sounds like a tooling issue to me. I would expect that any augments > would inherit the conditional nature of anything augmented. Perhaps, but there is nothing in the specification to hint this. On the contrary, leafrefs, for example, explicitly require to be conditional on the same set of if-features than their targets. But you are right, there is no such requirements for augments. Still, if the feature is disabled and the augment should be applied, since its target does not technically exist in the schema, it cannot be found. That is the error our tools currently produce. > If you disagree, perhaps a thread to the netmod alias would get you an > 'official' answer on the proper behavior. I have sent the email to "netconf" because that is WG that published it but no harm in adding a copy for "netmod". > Eric > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netconf <netconf-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michal Vaško > > Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 11:14 AM > > To: netconf <netc...@ietf.org> > > Subject: [netconf] YANG Push module errors > > > > Hi, > > > > we are led to believe there is an error in the ietf-yang-push module > published in > > RFC 8641 but I wanted to discuss it here before submitting an errata. > There are 2 > > augments [1] on a notification that is conditional on "configured" feature > but > > these 2 augments are not conditional. Having this feature disabled, we > were not > > able to load this module into our tools. Does anyone disagree with this or > with > > submitting an errata? > > > > Regards, > > Michal > > > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8641#page-48 and the next page > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netconf mailing list > > netc...@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
