Re: [netconf] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-09.txt

["Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Regarding the change below (which was added in rev-10) to match by order, was this done just to make life easier for the client (the publisher is deciding what’s the best match) or is there another motivation? I think this is a good change, but curious as to the reason.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: netconf <[e-mail]> on behalf of Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel=[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 6:55 AM
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [netconf] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-09.txt

OK. For both.
Regards Balazs

From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Sent: 2020. január 10., péntek 17:08
To: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [netconf] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-09.txt

Hi Kent, Balazs,

Yes, I think that this would work, but might also need to change the rule from matching the capabilities from the longest node path, to the order that the entries are in the list.  E.g. the capabilities are decided by the first entry in the list that matches the given path.  The existing longest node path behaviour can effectively be implemented by ordering the more specific node paths before the less specific node paths.

Would that be acceptable?

I would also suggest giving the choice and the leaf a separate name below.

Thanks,
Rob


From: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 10 January 2020 15:35
To: Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [netconf] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-09.txt


Hi Balazs,




Would the following be acceptable?
OLD:
     list per-node-capabilities {
       key "node-selector";
       leaf node-selector {
         type nacm:node-instance-identifier;
NEW:
     list per-node-capabilities {
       choice node-selector {
             leaf node-selector {   type nacm:node-instance-identifier;  }
     }

Later you can augment in an Xpath filter or a string with '*' and '?' wildcards or whatever you want.
(The list does not need a key as it is config=false)


Yes, this is inline with what I had in mind but, since this was my suggestion, I was hoping that Rob or others would reply.

Kent // contributor