IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] What should a server response be? - depending on NP-containers

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 17 August 2016 08:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04EB12D146 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 01:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nB4_ujEv89c3 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 01:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C95112B00C for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 01:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.38]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 327081AE0285; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:29:15 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:28:21 +0200
Message-Id: <20160817.102821.2247775938129211118.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: vladimir@transpacket.com
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <57AC713E.8080006@transpacket.com>
References: <CABCOCHTM_+jfNVC6ubyzh-_QdwKL8=zpVQ_PjL2dX4HZvfi2BA@mail.gmail.com> <m2mvkj4tvv.fsf@nic.cz> <57AC713E.8080006@transpacket.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/APChys8neVxMksC63E2Bva3pL4I>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] What should a server response be? - depending on NP-containers
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:29:18 -0000

Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@transpacket.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/2016 10:00 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > I'd suggest to wait for Martin, hopefully he isn't shipwrecked on a
> > deserted island. Lada
> +1
> 
> Because Martin knows why the following text was introduced between
> rev. 01 and rev. 02 in 6.4.1 Xpath Context:
> 
>    If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence
>    container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in
>    the tree.
> 
> I can't find nothing relevant to the change on the mailing list and
> the minutes in that time period, or the issue list.

This is issue #41.

[it seems the link to the issues list doesn't work anymore.  so see
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/trac/browser/yang-1.1/issues.txt]



/martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email