[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 []) 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-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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (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 []) (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 []) 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


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