Re: [netmod] datastore-specific constraints

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-12-13 at 09:51 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 15:23 +0000, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > > > Hi Lada,
> > > > I basically agree with Jan's suggestion.
> > > > I don't think that I would use a when statement for this scenario since
> > you
> > > > want a leaf to report the operational value that is in effect, and one of
> > the
> > > > aims of NMDA is to try and get the configured and operational value onto
> > the
> > > > same path wherever possible.
> > > > But, I think that the question about validity of must statements is more
> > > > interesting.  RFC 8342 states that these can be violated in operational,
> > but
> > > > the intention is that the constraints in <operational> should generally
> > apply
> > > > (but never be actually checked by the server).  In this case, it might be
> > > > useful to be able to annotate a must statement to indicate that it only
> > > > applies to configuration data and not operational data.
> > > 
> > > Another option could be that "must" constraints on config data do not apply
> > in
> > > <operational>, whereas constraints on "config false" data serve as binding
> > > guidelines for implementors.
> > 
> > Not sure what "binding guideline" means, but note that RFC 8342 says
> > for <operational>:
> > 
> >    <operational> SHOULD conform to any constraints specified in the data
> >    model, but given the principal aim of returning "in use" values, it
> >    is possible that constraints MAY be violated [...]
> 
> According to the definition of SHOULD and MAY in RFC 2119, this sentence
> contradicts itself.

It should probably have been "may" then...?

> >    Only semantic constraints MAY be violated.  These are the YANG
> >    "when", "must", "mandatory", "unique", "min-elements", and
> >    "max-elements" statements; and the uniqueness of key values.
> 
> It is nice to see "when" listed among semantic constraints.

Yeah, I was a bit surprised that this sentence classifies "when" as a
semantic constraint...

> Note, however, that
> in sec. 8.1 of RFC 7950, "when" ended up among the constraints that
> are true in 
> all data trees (despite my hefty protests in the past).

Note that also uniqueness of keys is listed in 8.1 as true all data
trees, but relaxed by 8342.


/martin