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

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

*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 <[e-mail]> 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