From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on
behalf of Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2018 7:21 a.m.
To: Michael Rehder
Cc: netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within ma
> a...@yumaworks.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 18 October 2018 7:21 a.m.
> *To:* Michael Rehder
> *Cc:* netmod@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't
> ensure presence of the mandatory object
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 a
lto:lho...@nic.cz<mailto:lho...@nic.cz>]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 4:43 AM
> To: Michael Rehder ; Juergen Schoenwaelder
> mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>>
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within man
> does mention presence).
> >
> > Perhaps this thread is just about misunderstanding of what "when" really
> > means, which is: Instances for which the "when" expression evaluates to
> false
> > must not be present.
> >
> > It does NOT mean
dnesday, October 17, 2018 4:43 AM
> To: Michael Rehder ; Juergen Schoenwaelder
>
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't
> ensure presence of the mandatory object
>
> Michael Rehder writes:
>
> > I've rea
h the "when" expression
evaluates to true must be present.
Lada
>
> Thanks
> Mike
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 5:20 PM
>> To: Michael Rehder
&g
certainly your IP address example does
not require it.
Thanks,
Rob
Thanks
Mike
*From:*Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:42 AM
*To:* Michael Rehder ; Juergen
Schoenwaelder
*Cc:* netmod@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mand
: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:42 AM
To: Michael Rehder ; Juergen Schoenwaelder
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure
presence of the mandatory object
Hi Mike,
On 16/10/2018 14:26, Michael Rehder wrote:
I've read rfc6110 and I didn
umps "mandatory", "min-elements" and
"max-elements".
Thanks,
Rob
Thanks
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 5:20 PM
To: Michael Rehder
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Thanks
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 5:20 PM
> To: Michael Rehder
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't
>
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 04:08:48PM +, Michael Rehder wrote:
> The mandatory statement in that case is ignored (I’ve pointed out
> the RNG and Schematron lack of enforcement). WHEN trumps the
> mandatory status (via explicit mandatory or implicit mandatory via
> min-elements 1)
Has the RNG an
: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 12:30 PM
To: Michael Rehder
Cc: Andy Bierman ; Walker, Jason
(jason_walk...@comcast.com) ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure
presence of the mandatory object
On
der
*Cc:* Andy Bierman ; Walker, Jason
(jason_walk...@comcast.com) ; netmod@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects
doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object
Hi Mike,
On 11/10/2018 19:05, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:0
Jason (
> jason_walk...@comcast.com) ; netmod@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't
> ensure presence of the mandatory object
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
> On 11/10/2018 19:05, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
>
&g
, 2018 12:06 PM
To: Michael Rehder
Cc: Andy Bierman ; Walker, Jason
(jason_walk...@comcast.com) ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure
presence of the mandatory object
Hi Mike,
On 11/10/2018 19:05, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Thu, O
Hi Mike,
On 11/10/2018 19:05, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Michael Rehder
mailto:michael.reh...@amdocs.com>> wrote:
I think the wording is relevant - something can be conditional but
still required.
Yes, but I think that this is already expressed by a node
) ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure
presence of the mandatory object
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Michael Rehder
mailto:michael.reh...@amdocs.com>> wrote:
There is no specific text - the text just says it is “conditional”.
e
>
Andy
>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:06 PM
> *To:* Michael Rehder
> *Cc:* Juergen Schoenwaelder ;
> Walker, Jason (jason_walk...@comcast.com) ;
> netmod@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] WHEN statem
Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure
presence of the mandatory object
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Michael Rehder
mailto:michael.reh...@amdocs.com>> wrote:
I think the wording is relevant - something can be conditional but still
required.
I
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:52 PM
> *To:* Michael Rehder
> *Cc:* Juergen Schoenwaelder ;
> Walker, Jason (jason_walk...@comcast.com) ;
> netmod@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't
> ensure presence of the mandatory object
...@comcast.com) ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure
presence of the mandatory object
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Michael Rehder
mailto:michael.reh...@amdocs.com>> wrote:
Sure.
I think the RFC is unclear since it seems that th
en clause
> > on the cases. This would ensure that at least one case is present since the
> > mandatory clause implements a Schematron existence constraint.
> > > Thanks
> > > Mike
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Robert Wilto
to:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de
> ]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:25 PM
> > To: Michael Rehder
> > Cc: Robert Wilton ; Ladislav Lhotka ;
> > netmod@ietf.org; Walker, Jason (jason_walk...@comcast.com)
> >
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement with
he cases. This would ensure that at least one case is present since the
> mandatory clause implements a Schematron existence constraint.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Mike
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
> > > Se
to:rwil...@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 11:33 AM
> > To: Michael Rehder ; Ladislav Lhotka
> > ; netmod@ietf.org
> > Cc: Walker, Jason (jason_walk...@comcast.com)
> >
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't
>
> > There is already back-end for existential checks for mandatory choice so
> > this
> seems reasonably consistent to me.
> > I appreciate there are existing issues for "when" but I don't see why this
> would make things any worse.
> > In fact by promo
mandatory choice so this
> seems reasonably consistent to me.
> I appreciate there are existing issues for "when" but I don't see why this
> would make things any worse.
> In fact by promoting a better dependency "direction" between schema
> elements, think it could s
ot; between schema elements,
think it could simplify things (so I naively think :) ).
Thanks
Mike
-----Original Message-
From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lho...@nic.cz]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:28 AM
To: Michael Rehder ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mand
ing issues for "when" but I don't see why this
would make things any worse.
In fact by promoting a better dependency "direction" between schema elements,
think it could simplify things (so I naively think :) ).
Thanks
Mike
> -Original Message-----
> From: Ladislav
Michael Rehder writes:
> I have a question about “when” and mandatory objects.
>
> It seems to me that the implemented semantics of “when” are really “optional
> when”, in that the enclosing object can be absent even though it is mandatory
> and the “when” clause holds true.
> The RFC could be
Hi Mike,
Please see below.
Jason
From: netmod On Behalf Of Michael Rehder
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 1:51 PM
To: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure
presence of the mandatory object
I have a question about “when” and mandatory ob
I have a question about “when” and mandatory objects.
It seems to me that the implemented semantics of “when” are really “optional
when”, in that the enclosing object can be absent even though it is mandatory
and the “when” clause holds true.
The RFC could be clearer about this.
Example
lea
32 matches
Mail list logo
