Re: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-11

["taoran (F)" <[e-mail]>]

FYI

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: taoran (F) 
发送时间: 2020年3月9日 10:13
收件人: 'Balázs Lengyel' <[e-mail]>
主题: 答复: [netconf] 答复: WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-11



-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Balázs Lengyel [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2020年3月7日 1:06
收件人: taoran (F) <[e-mail]>; Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
主题: RE: [netconf] 答复: WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-11

Hello,
Thinking a bit more about this I think we should not include the when statement because:
- It is possible that supported-excluded-change-type  is declared on the system level while on-change-supported is declared on datastore level. In such cases when the explicit declaration of on-change-supported and supported-excluded-change-type is done on different levels (system/datastore/specific data node) only a very complicated when statement would work.
[Ran]: Why add datastore level "on-change-supported " constraint to system level when statement, why not define when statement at the datastore level and system level separately? Let datastore level "on-change-supported" node value overrides system level "on-change-supported" node value, so does "supported-excluded-change-type".
- As this is output from the node, when statement are not even checked by many implementations
[Ran]: Correct, but not all implementations skip checking the output.
So while the idea is relevant, practically it would be too difficult.
Regards Balazs

-----Original Message-----
From: netconf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of taoran (F)
Sent: 2020. március 6., péntek 9:27
To: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: [netconf] 答复: WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-11

1. Section 5.1 said:
“
   augment /sysc:system-capabilities/sysc:datastore-capabilities/ +
     |                                 sysc:per-node-capabilities:
     +--ro subscription-capabilities
        +--ro (update-period)?
        |  +--:(minimum-update-period)
        |  |  +--ro minimum-update-period?        uint32
        |  +--:(supported-update-period)
        |     +--ro supported-update-period*      uint32
        +--ro max-nodes-per-update?               uint32
        +--ro minimum-dampening-period?           uint32 {yp:on-change}?
        +--ro on-change-supported?                notification-support
        |                                                {yp:on-change}?
        +--ro periodic-notifications-supported?   notification-support
        +--ro supported-excluded-change-type*     union {yp:on-change}?
”
I believe on-change-supported and supported-excluded-change-type are related to each other, i.e., only when on-change-supported holds, Support-excluded-change-type needs to be supported. Would it make sense to add when statement under supported-excluded-change-type.
One Follow up comment is should supported-excluded-change-type be applicable to config true node or config false node?

BALAZS: OK, I will do it in the after the WGLC.