Hi,
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 4:43 PM Kent Watsen <k...@watsen.net> wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > I'm not following your "In the meanwhile" thoughts. > > Legacy clients are failing offline validation today. If running config has > a leafref to system config, and <get-config> doesn't return that system > config (which it doesn't in some implementations), then the instance data > returned to the client doesn't validate against the YANG model. These > implementations don't have an explicit <system> datastore today (but they > do have these internal semi-hidden referenceable list entries). > > > This is an implementation bug. YANG validation for configuration data nodes is very clear. It intentionally does not allow any leafrefs to point at data nodes outside <running>. Vendors who follow these YANG rules can return a representation of <running> that can be validated. Andy > You’re correct about that, and I said so before about how, with JUNOS, any > ref to a “junos-defaults” node would fail offline-validation of running. > This is already an issue today. > > Also to your point, JUNOS has a templating-like mechanism (apply-groups) > that clients MUST understand. The NMS we built at Juniper had to > understand the “apply-groups” mechanism just to import config for devices > during a new-device onboarding workflow. > > K. > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
