On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 8:07 AM Balázs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com>
wrote:
> Hello Andy,
>
> Looking through the use-cases I think the producer will always know
> whether it includes default values or not. This is the case if the instance
> data set is produced by the server e.g. in UC4, UC5, or if it created by
> some design activity UC1, UC2, UC3, UC8. (UC6 and UC7 are so broad and
> loosely defined it is hard to say much about them.)
>
>
>
> Once the producer knows whether defaults are included or not it can set
> the include-defaults accordingly, so the default value for include-defaults
> is not so important. However, I chose trim as the default because:
>
> - during the WGLC the draft explicitly stated that defaults SHOULD NOT
> be included and the WG was happy/ok with that
> - IMHO It is better to have short files,
>
>
>
I strongly object to having a default-stmt since it does matter and
the usage is incorrect.
If the include-defaults is not set then conveying a default value of 'trim'
is incorrect.
Leaving it out of a representation does not change the semantics of the
model.
The consumer will add that leaf = "trim" if it is missing.
Andy
Note, I used the term *producer*, as IMHO the above is true in all cases
> whether the server produces the file or some design activity creates the
> server.
>
> Regards Balazs
>
>
>
> *From:* netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* 2021. július 8., csütörtök 19:16
> *To:* NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> The module has this object:
>
>
>
> leaf includes-defaults {
>
> type enumeration {
>
> enum report-all {
>
> value 1;
>
> description
>
> "All data nodes SHOULD be included independent of
>
> any default values.";
>
> }
>
> enum trim {
>
> value 2;
>
> description
>
> "Data nodes that have a default defined and where
>
> the actual value is the default value SHOULD
>
> NOT be included.";
>
> }
>
> enum explicit {
>
> value 3;
>
> description
>
> "Data nodes that have a default defined and where
>
> the actual value is the default value SHOULD NOT be
>
> included. However, if the actual value was set by
>
> a NETCONF client or other management application
>
> by the way of an explicit management operation the
>
> data node SHOULD be included.";
>
> }
>
> }
>
> default trim;
>
>
>
> The draft is extremely server-centric, like most IETF standards, but this
>
> leaf is too server-centric to ignore.
>
>
>
> Consider the possibility that the source of the file is NOT a NETCONF
> server.
>
> This data may not be known so the default of "trim" may not be correct.
>
>
>
> IMO this leaf is noise because any tool that knows the schema will also
>
> know the YANG defaults. The solution is incomplete anyway because
>
> the presence of a leaf that has a YANG default is not enough.
>
> The "report-all-tagged" mode must be used to identify defaults.
>
> IMO this leaf should be removed, but at least add an enum called "unknown".
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
