Martin, Lada, I believe this got lost with all the discussion of schema mount/yang library during roughly the same time frame. You have both advocated using derived-from()/dervived-from-or-self() for ietf-ospf.yang checking. However, either I have misinterpreted the RFC 7950 description of these YANG functions or the yangvalidator validation is broken. Please see below.
Thanks, Acee On 1/22/18, 1:42 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: Hi Martin, Lada, In experimenting with this, I get YANGLINT validation errors. I’m not sure what I’m missing but the first argument to derived-from()/derive-from-or-self() is the schema node and the second is the identity – correct? For example, the following YANG leaf: identity ospf-protocol { base "rt:routing-protocol"; description "Any version the OSPF protocol"; } identity ospfv2 { base "ospf-protocol"; description "OSPFv2"; } identity ospfv3 { base "ospf-protocol"; description "OSPFv3"; } leaf routing-protocol-name { type leafref { path "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" + "rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:name"; } must "derived-from( " + "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" + "rt:control-plane-protocol[rt:name=current()]/" + "rt:type, ospf:ospf-protocol)"; description "OSPF routing protocol instance name."; } Gives me: warn: Schema node "ietf-ospf:ospf-protocol" not found (derived-from( /ietf-routing:routing/ietf-routing:control-plane-protocols/ietf-routing:control-plane-protocol[ietf-routing:name=current()]/ietf-routing:type, ietf-ospf:ospf-protocol) with context node "/ietf-ospf:if-state-change/routing-protocol-name". Thanks Acee On 1/10/18, 4:36 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: Hi, I think we can agree that the model in this I-D should use derived-from-or-self() instead of string comparison, and conclude this discussion here. I suggest that if we need to further discuss the representation of identityrefs, then we start a new thred on the NETMOD ML. /martin Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 16:23 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 09:06 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Acee, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > please see inline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 19:28 +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lada, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apologies for the delay. We somewhat got hung up on 4 and 6. See > > inline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/6/17, 6:26 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Review result: Ready with Issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Maybe the draft could mention that implementations should supply > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default routing domain as a system-controlled resource. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn’t this more of an RFC8022BIS statement? I guess we could state > > this as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an assumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably, but it is not a YANG issue, so I'd leave it to you routing > > folks > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > decide. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. In "when" expressions, the module uses literal strings for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identities. This is known to be problematic, the XPath functions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > derived-from() or derived-from-or-self() should be used instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is this problematic? Is it because the types can be extended? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's one reason: derived identities should often also satisfy the > > > > > > constraint. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the more serious problem is that things like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when "../../../../../../../rt:type = 'ospf:ospfv3'" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rely on plain string comparison that depends od the actual prefix used > > for > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rt:type" value. For one, according to RFC 7951 the JSON encoding of > > this > > > > > > value > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be "ietf-ospf:ospfv3" so the above expression is always false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not correct; the when expression is not evaluated on the JSON > > > > > > encoding. See the last paragraph of section 9.10.3 in RFC 7950: > > > > > > > > > > > > The string value of a node of type "identityref" in a "must" or > > > > > > "when" XPath expression is the referred identity's qualified name > > > > > > with the prefix present. If the referred identity is defined in an > > > > > > imported module, the prefix in the string value is the prefix defined > > > > > > in the corresponding "import" statement. Otherwise, the prefix in > > > > > > the string value is the prefix for the current module. > > > > > > > > > > This is weird, to say the least. The leafref instance may have an identity > > value > > > > > that is defined in a module that (has to be implemented by the server but) > > > > > needn't be imported in the module that contains the XPath expression. So I > > don't > > > > > know what 'corresponding "import" statement' this paragraph is talking > > about. > > > > > > It has to import the module in order to give a prefix, which then can > > be used in the XPath expression. > > In the XPath expression above, do you mean the "rt" prefix of "rt:type"? If so, > it is irrelevant for the string comparison, what's important is the *value* of > the "rt:type" instance, which can be an identity defined in a module that > needn't be imported by ietf-routing, ietf-ospf or whatever. Sec. 9.10.2: > > On a particular server, the valid values are further restricted to the set of > identities defined in the modules implemented by the server. > > > > > > Also, potentially there can be a collision in prefixes and then this also > > breaks > > > > > down. > > > > > > No, two modules cannot be imported with the same prefix. > > I have to disagree. An identity derived from the "ietf-routing:control-protocol- > type" base identity can be defined in a module that is not imported anywhere. If > a server declares such a module as implemented, then "rt:type" may have this > value per sec. 9.10.2. > > And, consequently, there may be two different modules with conflicting prefixes > defining identities that are derived from "ietf-routing:control-protocol-type". > > > > > > A moral of the namespace/prefix story in XML was that relying of namespace > > > > > prefixes having a particular value is a really bad idea. I know that the > > cited > > > > > paragraph was intended to make such XPath string comparisons more > > deterministic, > > > > > but it is also problematic and should be avoided if possible. > > > > > > Note that this prefix is under the control of the module designer > > writing the XPath expression. The same identityref value might use a > > No, it is not. The prefixes appear in instance data. > > Lada > > > different prefix in some other module. > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the equality test of the identityref is correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I agree that in most cases 'derived-from-or-self' should be > > > > > > used, in order to handle derived identities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > -- > > > > > Ladislav Lhotka > > > > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > > > > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > > > > > > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf