Re: [Netconf] Netconf Digest, Vol 123, Issue 43
Shiva Kumar Pathori <pathori@gmail.com> Tue, 29 May 2018 19:59 UTC
Return-Path: <pathori@gmail.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 47F9112EBD1 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 OUhQ7mAtzFS5 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x230.google.com (mail-ot0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5BCA12EB92 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x230.google.com with SMTP id g7-v6so18414198otj.11 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=DaDe8njUMNVGZx9hKmvX8oT3dGEZNzV7FZ/Pg4h1EYI=; b=R9XTqErt4qY14/iGPIihBkT0RX8IkO4sb5z17DRTjuNap09YxoNtK1yezIAVOrrOmx x91UKR0WfbabkGbUea7OsogEIH4zcG2ol0qbifkHdfYBXOVj6e9Z++6/asYPeIKhsqiu jVKxE4KLKuE7agRduYKH7ztJQcJrAFxp7aoZLaNMlVw60DCGrjJtpfDy7P5MtfYzp6yw VYwgFDlr3j4w4fh/HUbq6hSpN+5jTHuFjs9vo8zIutM6pwO0UICffrRfYajD1UNUnGX/ 1E5GSKDu6mCCzDbLH1cnR4Y7US1w0vTyTJ1R1tSIRlOb9+kPvojy7sgkJShZ6Ol5gvsL Q4/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=DaDe8njUMNVGZx9hKmvX8oT3dGEZNzV7FZ/Pg4h1EYI=; b=RtnFOvSWLMa/HIp0ev6T3AUvBHZ215Bd9opU/qCjPW4Lq+zEdic4t6E06vhsSw0uGy sbCbzHHJDav86bW71VNi4iEyAiLiJvh66NSwyyV5fVh/50fHinmr2i5msToCdji2LQJZ Hob2HPE/HTVRxmofU3UcWIjov+HKuTuK7DbdElTK8dSdjtegbULn7t6EELsHjb3EpiEH 9yEJ95Vr8OomUMWO/V+4sHxf67G3+aJDk1hbtJQkGNIKmTzBh0af496hcLmhWkjm6hwL lp4wR/umrvCkx2Ug/8+0eLlVrGHlfgffiOxMcMbP8dbyU09TNEJpFSLR4z8ypVUHN4nm MoMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdrGILd3thgN9PRf97/5urH7GXHZmWnXVS/P5k8LvWaiAi8qMm0 r89qyPkc5jB/w6VDbNx2d0o6RRldoDEVXS7TPH8dog==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZo8Nyp4Y2kxd+dR/SmFP8SKyQH24rYb54ZdCWJsOLBuzEabIG+bk8mSJcNKvQm/JWxeAhmkKLBb4G5bjc+oWGk=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:44c3:: with SMTP id p3-v6mr12663995otg.66.1527623993917; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:424:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.43.1527534007.23060.netconf@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.43.1527534007.23060.netconf@ietf.org>
From: Shiva Kumar Pathori <pathori@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 01:29:53 +0530
Message-ID: <CAJtYN8LBOrmZqSJug5n80UdSuOit2rZW8jQaUzsjNPyvs6Q3RQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: netconf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008207ab056d5dadcd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ODwCm9Z4qqahEIYgipSHtKNbvpY>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Netconf Digest, Vol 123, Issue 43
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 29 May 2018 19:59:59 -0000
Hi, What could be the reason for not including the "<full-name>" leaf in the reply? I see the example in section 6.4.5 in RFC 6241 include the above mentioned leaf when a content match node present in the filter. BTW, the reply is same for the both xpath and subtree filter RPCs mentioned in the mail? On 29 May 2018 at 00:30, <netconf-request@ietf.org> wrote: > Send Netconf mailing list submissions to > netconf@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > netconf-request@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > netconf-owner@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Netconf digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Clarification about su tree filtering (Martin Bjorklund)Hi > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 15:37:48 +0200 (CEST) > From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> > To: mjethanandani@gmail.com > Cc: netconf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Netconf] Clarification about su tree filtering > Message-ID: <20180528.153748.2044064270808262081.mbj@tail-f.com> > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi, > > See answers inline. > > > Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote: > > Forwarding to NETCONF WG mailing list. > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > From: Shiva Kumar Pathori <pathori@gmail.com> > > > Date: May 28, 2018 at 5:27:19 AM EDT > > > To: Alex Campbell <Alex.Campbell@aviatnet.com> > > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Clarification about subtree filtering > > > > > > Thanks Alex for the clarification. Can somebody please clarify about > subtree filter behaviour or provide some pointers in RFC so that I can > refer to it. > > > > > >> On Thu 24 May, 2018, 5:56 AM Alex Campbell, < > Alex.Campbell@aviatnet.com> wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> > > >> Since nobody else has answered I'll have a go. > > >> I'm not familiar with subtree filtering, but I am with XPath. > Assuming your XPath translation is accurate, it will return no data > (response A). > > >> > > >> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Shiva Kumar > Pathori <pathori@gmail.com> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2018 8:38 p.m. > > >> To: netmod@ietf.org > > >> Subject: [netmod] Clarification about subtree filtering > > >> > > >> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> Can somebody clarify what could be the response for the <get-config> > operation provided below. > > >>> > > >>> Following is the user information in the datastore that is provided > in the RFC 6241 as example. > > >>>> <rpc message-id="101" > > >>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> > > >>>> <get-config> > > >>>> <source> > > >>>> <running/> > > >>>> </source> > > >>>> <filter type="subtree"> > > >>>> <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config"> > > >>>> <users/> > > >>>> </top> > > >>>> </filter> > > >>>> </get-config> > > >>>> </rpc> > > >>> > > >>>> <rpc-reply message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns: > netconf:base:1.0"> > > >>>> <data> > > >>>> <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> > > >>>> <user> > > >>>> <name>fred</name> > > >>>> <type>admin</type> > > >>>> <full-name>Fred Flintstone</full-name> > > >>>> <company-info> > > >>>> <dept>2</dept> > > >>>> <id>2</id> > > >>>> </company-info> > > >>>> </user> > > >>>> <user> > > >>>> <name>barney</name> > > >>>> <type>admin</type> > > >>>> <full-name>Barney Rubble</full-name> > > >>>> <company-info> > > >>>> <dept>2</dept> > > >>>> <id>3</id> > > >>>> </company-info> > > >>>> </user> > > >>>> </users> > > >>>> </top> > > >>>> </data> > > >>>> </rpc-reply> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The <get-config> operation with content-match at parent and child > nodes; > > >>> > > >>>> <rpc message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns: > netconf:base:1.0"> > > >>>> <get-config> > > >>>> <source> > > >>>> <running/> > > >>>> </source> > > >>>> <filter type="subtree"> > > >>>> <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config"> > > >>>> <users> > > >>>> <user> > > >>>> <type>admin</name> > > >>>> <company-info> > > >>>> <dept>1</dept> > > >>>> </company-info> > > >>>> </user> > > >>>> </users> > > >>>> </top> > > >>>> </filter> > > >>>> </get-config> > > >>>> </rpc> > > >>> > > >>> The equivalent XPATH expression : > > >>>> <rpc message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns: > netconf:base:1.0"> > > >>>> <get-config> > > >>>> <source> > > >>>> <running/> > > >>>> </source> > > >>>> <filter xmlns:t="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config" > > >>>> type="xpath" > > >>>> select="/t:top/t:users/t:user[ > t:type='admin']/t:company-info[t:dept=?1?]"/> > > >>>> </get-config> > > >>>> </rpc> > > This is not an equivalent expression, b/c a content-match node ("type") > is not AND:ed with a selection node ("company-info"). > > > >>> For this what could be the response > > >>> > > >>> a) The response based on content-match nodes are AND-ed together > > >>>> <rpc-reply message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns: > netconf:base:1.0"> > > >>>> <data> > > >>>> </data> > > >>>> </rpc-reply> > > >>> OR > > >>> > > >>> b) The response based on content-match nodes treated separately > > >>>> <rpc-reply message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns: > netconf:base:1.0"> > > >>>> <data> > > >>>> <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config"> > > >>>> <users> > > >>>> <user> > > >>>> <name>fred</name> > > >>>> <type>admin</type> > > >>>> <full-name>Fred Flintstone</full-name> > > >>>> </user> > > >>>> <user> > > >>>> <name>barney</name> > > >>>> <type>admin</type> > > >>>> <full-name>Barney Rubble</full-name> > > >>>> </user> > > >>>> </users> > > >>>> </top> > > >>>> </data> > > >>>> </rpc-reply> > > Sibling content-match nodes are AND:ed, but in this case "type" and > "dept" are not siblings. > > The correct reply is: > > <data> > <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config"> > <users> > <user> > <name>fred</name> (*) > <type>admin</type> > </user> > <user> > <name>barney</name> (*) > <type>admin</type> > </user> > </users> > </top> > </data> > > (*) note that if the name is the key, it MAY (or may not) be present > in the output, see 6.2.5 of RFC 6241: > > o If any sibling nodes of the selection node are instance identifier > components for a conceptual data structure (e.g., list key leaf), > then they MAY also be included in the filter output. > > > > /martin > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Netconf Digest, Vol 123, Issue 43 > **************************************** >
- Re: [Netconf] Netconf Digest, Vol 123, Issue 43 Shiva Kumar Pathori