Re: [netmod] Clarification wanted regarding applicability of YANG 1.1 issues list to YANG 1.0 implementations

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 23 October 2017 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4991B13F0D1 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w7U2ACg5XvxN for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00C113F0D0 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.41]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1739C1AE012C; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:39:35 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:38:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20171023.103809.730636049643361231.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: william.ivory@intl.att.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <E3378E0605547F4E854DEE0CB1116AB025DD28@gbcdcmbx03.intl.att.com>
References: <E3378E0605547F4E854DEE0CB1116AB025DD28@gbcdcmbx03.intl.att.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/72otIFE9_Fq9x6bbSMcuy0Dof0s>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Clarification wanted regarding applicability of YANG 1.1 issues list to YANG 1.0 implementations
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:39:37 -0000

Hi,

The problem is that this behavior was underspecified in YANG 1.  Fixed
in YANG 1.1, but it means that you can't expect the behavior for YANG
1 modules to be the same in different servers.


/martin


"Ivory, William" <william.ivory@intl.att.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've asked about evaluating must statements on unconfigured
> non-presence containers here before, but realise I never got a
> definitive answer on whether the clarification in the YANG 1.1 issues
> list actually applies to YANG 1.0, or only YANG 1.1:
> 
> YANG 1.0 XPATH context:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020#section-6.4.1
> 
>   *   No mention of non-presence containers
> 
> YANG 1.0 errata: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6020
> 
>   *   No mention of non-presence containers
> 
> YANG 1.1 Issues list:
> http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html#sec-42
> 
>   *   Clarification of handling of non-presence containers for XPATH context
>   *   / validation
> 
> YANG 1.1 XPATH context:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-6.4.1
> 
>   *   '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.'
> 
> As you can see from the links above, the errata for YANG 1.0 does NOT
> include the clarification, whereas the text of YANG 1.1 (RFC 7950)
> does.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> William