Re: [I2rs-proto-dt] couple YANG details

"Susan Hares" <> Fri, 23 October 2015 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE521A906F for <>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.155
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gfdHXjfJbV5 for <>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 451271A9074 for <>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: "'Andy Bierman'" <>, <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:36:47 -0400
Message-ID: <031901d10dd2$8a65ddc0$9f319940$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_031A_01D10DB1.0355EB70"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKMEsdjPzkqeQIW8vtZ5c+9e7UOnAHIfNVjnPU7fxA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [I2rs-proto-dt] couple YANG details
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: I2RS protocol design team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 20:36:47 -0000



Can you define Yang constraint for me?  I’m glad to work through these issues for all constraints. 




From: I2rs-proto-dt [] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:49 PM
To: Susan Hares;
Subject: Re: [I2rs-proto-dt] couple YANG details




We need to figure out for each YANG constraint:

 1) does it apply at all?

 2) is it MUST, SHOULD, or MAY enforce?

 3) Does the constraint apply the same in running vs. ephemeral?

 4) Does the constraint apply to the combined panes of glass or

     each pane independently?




On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Andy Bierman <>; wrote:



I would like to simplify the draft a bit further.


1) module-level "ephemeral" flag

Since the data node flag applies to the entire subtree,

it should be simple enough to just require each top-level

data node to declare 'ephemeral true' if needed.

There are usually 1 - 2 top-level data nodes per module so

this is not a burden.  Checking 2 places is too complicated

and they can conflict.


2) groupings wrt/ edit overlap


YANG already has a way to say what sub-nodes must

be present (mandatory=true, min-elements>0).

Is this good enough for I2RS?  Can the requirements

for the ephemeral version be different than the

persistent version, wrt/ mandatory & min-elements?