Re: [netmod] [Netconf] What should a server response be? - depending on NP-containers

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:42:34AM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> > On 08/23/2016 12:08 AM, Alex Campbell wrote:
> > > The intention in this case is obviously to evaluate the 'must' statement if
> > > the container contains any values; what would break if we said that
> > > 
> > >     A non-presence container exists in the data tree if and only if it has
> > >     any children which exist in the data tree.
> > > 
> > > thus disallowing the existence of empty NP-containers in the data tree?
> > 
> > The question is where is the misunderstanding.
> > 
> >    "If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence
> >    container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in
> >    the tree."
> > 
> > What does this mean? I believe there is confusion based on "the tree"
> > refering not to the data tree but the Xpath context. At least I hoped until
> > I realized the text was introduced as a solution to Y41 'clarification of
> > "must" in NP-container'. That definitely means it addresses the must
> > statements in the non-presence containers and it means "the tree" as in the
> > data tree.
> 
> My reading is that 'tree' refers to the 'accessible tree' used earlier
> in the sentence. The accessible tree itself is defined just above the
> quoted sentence. If my reading of the text is correct, then the
> obvious clarification would be:
> 
> OLD
> 
>    If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence
>    container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in
>    the tree.
> 
> NEW
> 
>    If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence
>    container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in
>    the accessible tree.

I think this is a useful and correct clarification.


/martin