Hi Michal, I see some hints about different obsolete node treatment in a transition manual referenced by the release notes for Version 4.2.2 of libyang: libyang: Transition Manual (3.x -> 4.0)<https://netopeer.liberouter.org/doc/libyang/master/html/transition3_4.html>
I’m just checking if that address the issue in this thread (of ignoring mandatory statements for nodes that are obsolete)? Jason From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 9:23 AM To: Robert Wilton <[email protected]> Cc: Michal Vasko <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: [netmod] Re: 'mandatory' evaluated against obsolete nodes? CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, 2 June 2025 at 11:45 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[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, 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]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
