Re: [netconf] Usage examples for max-depth (rfc8526)

["Wisotzky, Sven (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <[e-mail]>]

Michael,

Actually I've got an use-case, which requires me to understand if a container or list contains data/entries - while I would like to avoid asking the complete lists as it could be gigantic. I was just wondering if max-depth is the right way of implementing my use-case. But in that case, I would actually prefer, if just a single instance of <user/> is returned. If we would return the empty <user/> element for all list entries - it would become a way to tell the client the number of list entries, which would be useful for me as well - but very inefficient.

/wiso
---

On 19.03.19, 03:36, "netconf on behalf of wangzitao" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    
    -----邮件原件-----
    发件人: netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Balázs Lengyel
    发送时间: 2019年3月18日 23:00
    收件人: [e-mail]
    主题: Re: [netconf] Usage examples for max-depth (rfc8526)
    
    As a private opinion:
    
    Providing a list without keys is kind of useless. IMHO keys should always be present if the list is allowed by depth. In my view the correct answer is:
    
    Example 3: no subtree filter is provided, max-depth=3
            <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
              <users>
                <user>
                   <name>Joe</name>
                </user>
                <user>
                   <name>Bill</name>
                </user>
                <user>
                   <name>Balazs</name>
                </user>
              </users>
            </top>
    
    So even if the key name is strictly speaking on depth=4 it should be included in a level 3 get result.
    
    [Michael]: Based on RFC8040, it will only output the <user> list level (depth 4), however, for a list without key and anther parameters, it doesn't seem to be meaningful.
    
    regards Balazs
    
    On 2019. 03. 14. 9:53, Wisotzky, Sven (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) wrote:
    > Unfortunately the info provided in RFC 8526 about the max-depth attribute is not very precise.
    > Is it fair to assume, that behavior is aligned with the RESTCONF "depth" attribute described in RFC 8040?
    >
    > Let's use the following sample from chapter 3.1.1.3:
    >         <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
    >           <users>
    >             <user>
    >               <name>root</name>
    >               <type>superuser</type>
    >               <full-name>Charlie Root</full-name>
    >               <company-info>
    >                 <dept>1</dept>
    >                 <id>1</id>
    >               </company-info>
    >             </user>
    >             <!-- additional <user> elements appear here... -->
    >           </users>
    >         </top>
    >
    > Example 1: no subtree filter is provided, max-depth=1
    >         <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
    >         </top>
    >
    > Example 2: no subtree filter is provided, max-depth=2
    >         <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
    >           <users>
    >           </users>
    >         </top>
    > Assumption the container <users> would only be present in the result, if this container has any explicit children configuration. If there is no children config, it would not be part of the output.
    >
    > Example 3: no subtree filter is provided, max-depth=3
    >         <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
    >           <users>
    >             <user>
    >             </user>
    >           </users>
    >         </top>
    > Somewhat interesting scenario. It provides the netconf client with a method to check, if a list contains any entries. So if the XML node <user> is contained, we would know that the list "user" has at least one entry. However, this XML output would not validate against the YANG model - because list-keys (user/name) are mandatory. In essence, that client requires to be flexible when parsing such result and cannot be restricted to YANG.
    >
    > Example 4: no subtree filter is provided, max-depth=4
    >         <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
    >           <users>
    >             <user>
    >               <name>root</name>
    >               <type>superuser</type>
    >               <full-name>Charlie Root</full-name>
    >               <company-info>
    >               </company-info>
    >             </user>
    >             <!-- additional <user> elements appear here... -->
    >           </users>
    >         </top>
    > Similar to example 2, the container <company-info> would only be present, if this container has explicit children configuration.
    >
    >
    > Someone please to confirm, if those examples and assumptions being made are correct!
    >
    > /wiso
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > netconf mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
    >
    -- 
    Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
    Senior Specialist
    Mobile: [phone]              email: [e-mail]
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    netconf mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf