Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice? (was RE: YangPush now)

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> > I would prefer to not add empty mandatory choices to any YANG module.
>
> > An empty choice is bad enough. In 2119 terms, using this container is a
>
> > SHOULD, not a MUST.
>
>
>
> Moving past the syntax-level discussion:
>
>
>
> 1) do you agree that a transport MUST be configured?
>
>
>
>        - if not, then how is this a configuration model when half the
> config is
>
>          hidden behind vendor magic?  In my view, this pushes the limit of
>
>          reasonableness.
>


Yes, but I do not agree it helps to force that configuration to be in this
choice-stmt.
A client developer is going to need the vendor YANG module before doing any
work
so they will see exactly where that config is located.



>
>
>   2) do you agree that at most only one transport can be configured per
> "receiver"?
>
>
>
>         - this is perhaps arguable but, if needed, then I'd push for a
> list with
>
>           min-elements 1.   That said, why support multiple transports
> under
>
>           a single "receiver", when multiple "receiver" instances can be
> created,
>
>           one for each?   Additionally, it muddies what the text means by
>
>           "receiver state", as then there would have to be state per
> transport.
>

Yes -- I don't even like multiple receivers so the added complexity is not
justified.
(I would have preferred 1 receiver per subscription with the ability to use
another subscription
config by reference. IMO the state data is cleaner and the design is
cleaner, but that's not
what we have)



>
>
> Kent // contributor
>
>
>

Andy