Re: [L3sm] RFC 8049 on YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Jan Lindblad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Benoît, all,
> 
> > On 9 Mar 2017, at 20:09, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > It seems like Jan discovered a bug.
> > Can the authors confirm?

I'm not an author, but I agree with Jan.

[...]

> #1)
> 
> 1995: grouping site-devices /l3vpn-svc/sites/site
>   container devices {
>    must "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/management/type = "+
>     "'provider-managed' or "+
>     "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/management/type ="+
>     "'co-managed'" {
> 
> To me, it appears that the author intended to say that the "container
> device" configuration is only applicable when the current site
> management type is 'provider-managed' or 'co-managed'. That would make
> sense.
> 
> The use of "must" and the use of the absolute paths above changes the
> meaning in YANG to "as soon as any l3vpn is configured, there must be
> at least one l3vpn (not necessarily the current one) that is
> 'provider-managed' or 'co-managed'." One implication would be that it
> would not be legal to have a collection of only 'customer-managed'
> vpns. What would be legal, though, is to have one 'provider-managed'
> l3vpn with no device configuration and another 'customer-managed' with
> devices configured. I expect this was not the intention.
> 
> I think an expression that reflects the intent would be
> 
>   container devices {
>    when "../management/type = "+
>     "'provider-managed' or "+
>     "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/management/type ="+
>     "'co-managed'" {

It needs one more modification:

   container devices {
    when "../management/type = 'provider-managed' or "
       + "../management/type = 'co-managed'" {

> This would make the container only exist when the management type of
> this site specifically is 'provider-managed' or 'co-managed'.


/martin