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

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]> 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