[netmod] if-feature vs. Identifiers and Their Namespaces

Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk> Fri, 03 August 2018 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <nite@hq.sk>
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 4B89E130FFF for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hq.sk
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 3ekAt5Vnx5Po for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hq.sk (hq.sk [81.89.59.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41642129385 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitebug.localdomain (chello085216197060.chello.sk [85.216.197.60]) by mail.hq.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CA84241EBE for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 21:10:24 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hq.sk; s=mail; t=1533323424; bh=RnKuO7aGC5eS1LWUB2QUd8l1w/SBLHN7NCmcKWsvzPE=; h=To:From:Subject:Date; b=OKHt8W3Manp2bDJVykhKcfrHEWVQysvs6X8qpuNDMFUDCy8J7EqDUxI2Nopvqo77x cjysiJDgTMNIW0D+x2Fqqw2iAvCzZkVvlf/93BlYnCxIyEjaWPZ7mHbt23Zsixs03r ia2oJyPQd3ORjsyeFCvqZSySmyLsCH+CWW29Fytw=
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
From: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <357fbf04-0092-93f4-1cb1-f8e27cf639c2@hq.sk>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 21:10:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DtY4j1LORN4dacMPIt73BgbxPMwLrifru"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/9JgPZphOdim-wLZA3NrSe3I1un4>
Subject: [netmod] if-feature vs. Identifiers and Their Namespaces
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 19:10:28 -0000

Hello,

I have went through RFC7950, but I cannot find the text which would give
answer whether:

feature foo;
feature bar;

container baz {
   if-feature "foo and (not baz)";
}

list baz {
   if-feature "(not foo) and baz";
}

is valid YANG or not. The two statements violate Section 6.1.2, but they
are mutually exlusive when conformance comes into play.

Does compliance (Section 5.6) have any bearing on namespaces (Section
6.1.2)?

Thanks,
Robert