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

[Vladimir Vassilev <[e-mail]>]

On 08/23/2016 09:33 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder 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.
>
> /js
>
So should the must statements defined in the non-presence container 
which is now part of the accessible tree be evaluated or not?

Vladimir