Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-02.txt

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

>> If we pick the former, it will not be possible to configure a component with
>> a system controlled parent (unless you also add the system controlled parent
>> to the configuration).
>> [Bart Bogaert] Is there a reason to only have this parent in the state tree
>> and not in the config tree?
>
> I am not sure I understand the question.  Suppose the config tree is
> empty, and the system boots and populates the state tree with all
> detected harwdare.  Next, a client would like to pre-provision a
> module in a chassis that exists in state.  If the leafref is to the
> config tree, the client would have to create both the chassis and the
> module in the config tree, since the leafef would otherwise fail to
> validate.
>
>> If we pick the latter you will not get any validation (since it has to be
>> require-instance false).
>> 
>> It is fine w/ me to change the type string to a leafref of the former type.
>
> Correction: I am fine with changing the string to a leafref to state.

This conversation seems to mirrors the we had regarding the i2rs 
topologoy model, where we landed on a leafref in 'running' could
point to a config true node in 'operational-state', as to apply 
configuration to, for instance, system-discovered underlays...or
do I misunderstand, is the intention here for the leafref to point
to a config false node?

Kent  // contributor