Re: [netconf] Questions about RFC 8040 example B.3.9

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Wed, 03 June 2020 07:07 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@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 19DA33A0C97 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 00:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 hLnQ9apscquG for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 00:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (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 8094A3A0C99 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 00:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id 9so1337599ljc.8 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 00:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZPotLq05cWtYPWRlmyzMLBR5mnYtWtKB5Zwd/aqLvH8=; b=k8WYNgn6LF1Uovyq/nHtOzvn6GuiP1kFtoCDkTbTomkH4Jh041uCp/T7KPr9iOnYdX GSDUoYf/2gmSsxXYPBxH+74/Fzkv8v0G0ZYbOFd5KA7AD0oDL7sdlnGwyuJsa3RjpJK7 CBeQe29YtD5qkIoRW53SE+8/GMRulq32rfHBrkt0cQ/VmNVh8syfZmm8vopXxKnFKvMJ BB2rcgyZdRYldSDhDsyIQccf9k8F7zgr/jpFIUp/t9NeDJ8aXnIsR7dZIVp6LT+9JCXc IlrLDYvHOOUdPiSmwQVGo1Pi60TKWsqGyIsuoy8TxW8G3FwGzXfKHT6dKJYY8vxppIEe IQ4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ZPotLq05cWtYPWRlmyzMLBR5mnYtWtKB5Zwd/aqLvH8=; b=DZnfbsEU2u+rzUfAdCAosuTToXYjELy2zjO1SXTLy0rmGW0u+BP86QcfOeChPALYfN kd0Z/2lqwPH8ul9AsdF1rBZujphVaKQ/ei5bmJt8CZ763Mbmu+8ZHwjaIW0gqS8Kdhp7 MNoEM+B6CJVL40DBxzif8SS9cnQBiwKGaL2T88Ehfs90TPILsgf/oEwXtNdw89uBOIlw JSn+HY8onhDFPCd4O18aHfyTkq1AcmZOEkUIF7PdgYzO4mTyb88qdbNq0WurBFMv58oY 7ON1o9RjP5I4WwFdQEg/+j8TDxNgbWR9MQ33ph2gS2DsARPepYHJivitm+4wPuVBFz0q YHiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531h2mRF0noWzIF1LL8qb90PGYDAMiEzs3Meb4BBMzUK9W8fI2JZ MZle2WPBRrR0WOOiROpXE3fl559zcMrUWkcEbgtkbHNX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzIsnTBWGDwsPIhFWKgPj8XgmSCtOUXdWbh9zJMHiCcsLJYkY8MEr0HUhCBUxvMaCWctYJ2f1sWl4FXijUtPTA=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2e0d:: with SMTP id u13mr1297037lju.189.1591168058134; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 00:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGnRvuo8pJp-Q3JHnPOQUf2cxoXa=3sj5n7LaK7OJ3OOFKMaig@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGnRvuo8pJp-Q3JHnPOQUf2cxoXa=3sj5n7LaK7OJ3OOFKMaig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:07:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvurpJPOuTrT7ft+kVXJPSm2frXw=LY-cVj2ew7X541PFFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/TxucCtTZ20TOOoNkkKKjZveAAOs>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Questions about RFC 8040 example B.3.9
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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, 03 Jun 2020 07:07:43 -0000

*sigh* pressed the send-button to early...

the "ok" vs. "up" thing is in the RFC 6243 errata.

Still, the problem with the array and the point that "up" should be
the default (and unreported by "trim") is still valid.

Henning Rogge

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:03 AM Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi...
>
> I am currently implementing all the "with-default" modes in my server
> and stumbled over a couple of questions with example B.3.9.
>
> First, the yang model in RFC 6243 A.1. defines the status enum with
> the values "ok", "waking up", "not feeling so good", "better check it
> out" and "better call for help" (with "ok" the default).
>
> RFC 8040 B.3.9. uses the value "up"... which is undefined (and unclear
> if it should be a default value or not).
>
> Second, both results in B.3.9. have a JSON array around the value of
> the "example:interface" section... I would expect the result of the
> first example to be
>
> {
>     "example:interface" : {
>         "name" : "eth1",
>         "status" : "up"
>     }
> }
>
> if "up" is a valid but non-default value for status.
>
> Same problem with the second example.
>
> The problem with "up" versus "ok" is also present in the RFC 6243
> examples in section A.2.
>
> Henning Rogge