I note that this issue is documented here: https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/66
> On Jun 2, 2025, at 5:07 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > Yes, I think that the default should be to assume the deprecated nodes exist > and obsolete nodes don’t perhaps with options to override the default > behaviour. > > Kind regards, > Rob > > > From: Michal Vasko <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, 2 June 2025 at 11:45 > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: [netmod] Re: 'mandatory' evaluated against obsolete nodes? > > So, I suppose libyang should be changed so that it does not validate obsolete > nodes. It should also treat these nodes as non-existing, without the option > of creating them? Or perhaps this should be the default behavior with an > option to parse/create and validate these nodes (current behavior)? > > Regards, > Michal > > On 2. 6. 2025 11:09, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > Andy’s interpretation is also consistent with > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-13#name-reporting-how-deprecated-an > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-13#name-reporting-how-deprecated-an>, > although that is done as flags advertised by the server rather than updating > the YANG language. > > Kind regards, > Rob > > > From: Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, 29 May 2025 at 22:03 > To: Andy Bierman <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>, Kent > Watsen <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: Jason Sterne (Nokia) <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [netmod] Re: 'mandatory' evaluated against obsolete nodes? > > +10. > > On Thursday, May 29, 2025 at 03:20:44 PM EDT, Kent Watsen > <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On May 29, 2025, at 11:01 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > We implement what makes sense. > > - deprecated means MUST implement (same as current but with a 'going away' > warning) > - obsolete nodes are removed from the schema tree by the server so no > validation is done on them and they are never implemented > > > This behavior sounds proper. > > Kent // contributor > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>_______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
