Re: [netmod] Query about augmenting 'config false' YANG

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Fri, 15 December 2017 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.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 9CF40126CC7 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:42:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 5RrIs6eFOVGd for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:42:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AAC912422F for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:42:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10243; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1513359720; x=1514569320; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=USJSwN9JBxDYIRzfQQI3LrCXkWhVe4IdRHjrXC4fs5I=; b=WYTCtFkKrAnnzE3VOVXtgr4eqeaeQ9/+M+KGbN5dMVrDJ5N8e9csM3zF ntFo70F1kkbodKZ4yIYEAYorBcNsk4GNrg+1mT8HKMFxME9xAYkpugd5n /N2xc0lIgRaxxhQ3yPvFqdnOzFbKA7B88PsZEo/TJ4NZcUm9XgRQPtdeG 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CCAQBCCDRa/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYJKgVp0J48XkBSRUYdkChgBCoRJTwKFQhUBAQEBAQEBAQFrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?kAQEEAQErPgMbCxguJzAGAQwGAgEBiiYQqzomikYBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEYBYNpg2SCEoMDgy4Bh2YFimaJJoVQiVqVK4wVh1yOcYgEgTs1IyWBKjI?= =?us-ascii?q?aCBsVPIIphFZBN4pOAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,406,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217";a="943992"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Dec 2017 17:41:58 +0000
Received: from [10.61.241.101] ([10.61.241.101]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBFHfv7O025568; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:41:58 GMT
To: "Ivory, William" <william.ivory@intl.att.com>, "'netmod@ietf.org'" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <E3378E0605547F4E854DEE0CB1116AB02B6F08@gbcdcmbx03.intl.att.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <8480c009-538d-5b3e-61f6-c3776ee4ac5c@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:41:57 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E3378E0605547F4E854DEE0CB1116AB02B6F08@gbcdcmbx03.intl.att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------24D61B1C609A08FC0A5F8DC5"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/AxfOb0ppn63Kz-sLcpWjLXuuM7U>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about augmenting 'config false' YANG
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:42:03 -0000

Looks valid to me.

Thanks,
Rob


On 15/12/2017 14:02, Ivory, William wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I’m running into a problem where my YANG is being rejected by a 
> NETCONF client that claims it can’t find the node being augmented.  
> The YANG snippet below shows the problem which relates specifically to 
> augmenting a node that is ‘config false’. AFAICT from reading RFC 
> 6020, this is valid YANG, but I would appreciate confirmation from the 
> experts!
>
> Pyang is quite happy with this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
>
> --- sample yang to show problem ---
>
>                 grouping state-grouping {
>
> container state {
>
> config false;
>
> leaf state-grp-state-leaf {
>
> type string;
>
> }
>
> }
>
>                 }
>
> container test {
>
> container state-cont {
>
> config false;
>
> leaf state-leaf {
>
> type string;
>
> }
>
> }
>
>                 }
>
>                 augment /test/state-cont {
>
> // Augment 'config false' container directly works.
>
> leaf augmented-state-leaf {
>
> type string;
>
> }
>
>                 }
>
>                 augment /test {
>
> uses state-grouping {
>
> // Augment here fails - 'state' not found.
>
> augment state {
>
> leaf aug-state-grp-leaf {
>
> type string;
>
> }
>
> }
>
> }
>
>                 }
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod