Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kent,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Watsen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 8:39 PM
> To: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-
> topology-08: (with COMMENT)
> 
> [reducing distribution]
> 
> 
> Hi Xufeng,
> 
> > Assume the following model:
> >
> > +--rw nodes
> >   +--rw node [id]
> >      +--rw id   string
> >      +--rw under-lay-attribute-a ???
> > +---ro nodes-state
> >   +--ro node [id]
> >      +--ro id   string
> >      +--ro attribute-a string
> >
> > I cannot define the under-lay-attribute-a to reference attribute-a as:
> >               type leafref {
> >                 path "../node/attribute-a"'
> >               }
> 
> 
> True, but maybe it could be:
> 
>    type leafref {
>       path "../node/attribute-a"
>       require-instance false;
>       description
>         "In the case when the referenced instance is not a configured
>          object, the system may resolve it by looking for it under the
>          /nodes-state node.  As the referenced operational state data
>          may have a lifecycle independent of configuration, this results
>          in an effect much like pre-provisioning interfaces in RFC 7223.";
>    }
[Xufeng] I think that "require-instance false" does not help here. The validation for path "../node/attribute-a" still fails because "attribute-a" does not exist under /nodes/node/. 

> 
> This would be cleaner in a revised-datastores oriented model, as then it would
> be obvious that the list's key space spanned across both datastores.
> 
> 
> Kent
>