Hi Chris, Inline …
From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 11 September 2025 at 09:12 To: NetMod WG <[email protected]> Subject: [netmod] Q. on example in RFC 8641 (yang-push incorrect deletions?) I have a question on the example in RFC8641 under 3.7 Streaming Updates In Figure 2, an example of a `push-change-update` shows a `replace` operation, critically perhaps, with a <target> of the root container `/ietf-interfaces:interfaces`. The value is specified also starting at the root node <interfaces> and a specific list object with key name `eth0` is given; the only leaf given other than the key is `oper-status` for the specific interface. ``` <notification xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:notification:1.0"> <eventTime>2017-10-25T08:22:33.44Z</eventTime> <push-change-update xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-push"> <id>89</id> <datastore-changes> <yang-patch> <patch-id>0</patch-id> <edit> <edit-id>edit1</edit-id> <operation>replace</operation> <target>/ietf-interfaces:interfaces</target> <value> <interfaces xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"> <interface> <name>eth0</name> <oper-status>down</oper-status> </interface> </interfaces> </value> </edit> </yang-patch> </datastore-changes> </push-change-update> </notification> ``` This primarily came up b/c I'm trying to figure out what format the <value> should take and what the <target> should be (in my case actually for RESTCONF). Anyway my question is this, doesn't this example direct the receiver to delete all other interfaces and also delete (or return to default) all the rest of the state in the `eth0` list object while only setting the `oper-state` value? Yes, that is also my interpretation, and I agree, this is unlikely to be what was intended. This is not the intention of the document I don't believe, I think the document is trying to show how to replace the single oper-state value not delete all other interface state. With RESTCONF transactions normally you provide the data "rooted" at the given target resource. With NETCONF and XML many (most/all?) times I believe the data is rooted at the actual root of the module. But even if the <value> data is correct here, shouldn't the <target> actually point at the `oper-state` leaf itself? Yes, I think that the target should be the node that is logically being replaced, if the YANG push operation is replace. Kind regards, Rob Thanks, Chris. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
