Re: [netmod] ?==?utf-8?q? ?==?utf-8?q? ?= mandatory choice with non-presence container cas

Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz> Tue, 25 June 2019 11:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
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 9B83A120140 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 04:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cesnet.cz
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 xaTIQNmXPPwT for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 04:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kalendar.cesnet.cz (kalendar.cesnet.cz [78.128.211.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A69D1120118 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 04:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by kalendar.cesnet.cz (Postfix, from userid 999) id 5401E60CB1; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:19:37 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cesnet.cz; s=kalendar; t=1561461577; bh=ajuCBiWpnT9decsPNHh8XKr+15PPsHOEbvar3wdQxgE=; h=In-Reply-To:From:Date:Cc:To:Subject; b=AQb3DXIDub9DfoxPDFxY8RIPu9rewYaDmm5lssc6bhrB1/pn1KDuiOtp64BcTbEBX HKPE/0BUZuM50BhPJAjFT3KNI0FkP6S59hkTkUMPmYkiIc791AMDY80soKTodmsLUl XC8wLZEwNWUIRBOujeRjdhni4ZvxrvpTsgCe7Dos=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB263192DBFAA0F634DBCF0A85B5E30@BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: =?utf-8?q?Michal_Va=C5=A1ko?= <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
X-Forward: 88.101.100.176
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:19:37 +0200
Cc: "Andy Bierman" <andy@yumaworks.com>, "netmod" <netmod@ietf.org>
To: =?utf-8?q?Rob_Wilton_=28rwilton=29?= <rwilton@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <791d-5d120380-25-51599d00@91535824>
User-Agent: SOGoMail 2.3.23
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/FPV3Xz8pst2X97-SQmOTKDJ24EM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] =?utf-8?b?Pz09P3V0Zi04P3E/ID89PT91dGYtOD9xPyA/PSAgbWFu?= =?utf-8?q?datory_choice_with_non-presence_container_cas?=
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:19:44 -0000

Hi Rob,
actually, I have used model with the container TOP just for simplification, I have encountered the issue while implementing ietf-ssh-server model from its current draft. I have created the container "users" [1] without any "user" list instances. Now, you may argue that this is still not a valid use-case because there are no users but I only tried to satisfy the condition. There are some users on the system but they are generated into the configuration on-demand when operational data is requested.

Regards,
Michal

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server-14#page-22

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 11:08 CEST, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote: 
 
> Hi Michal,
> 
> It is not the printing of the data that makes it valid/invalid.
> 
> I don't think that your input data was ever valid, because "container C" doesn't satisfy the mandatory statement because it isn't a real data node in the tree - it is instantiated when required and may be deleted when it is no longer required.
> 
> I.e. your model has been designed such that it can never be satisfied.
> 
> 
> If your model was instead:
> 
> container TOP {
>   leaf L {
>     type empty;
>   }
>   choice A {
>     mandatory true;
>     container C {
>       leaf L2 {
>         type empty;
>       }
>     }
>   }
> }
> 
> 
> Then this data is valid:
> 
> <TOP>
>   <L/>
>   <C>
>    <L2/>
>   </C>
> </TOP>
> 
> 
> But this data is not:
> 
> <TOP>
>   <L/>
> </TOP>
> 
> 
> Nor is this, which is directly equivalent to the one above, because the <C/> container doesn't really exist if it doesn't have a child node present.
> 
> <TOP>
>   <L/>
>   <C/>
> </TOP>
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
> > Sent: 24 June 2019 18:15
> > To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
> > Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>om>; netmod <netmod@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] ?= mandatory choice with non-presence container cas
> > 
> > Hi Andy,
> > 
> > On Monday, June 24, 2019 19:11 CEST, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > I think there is a problem in the RFC because using only allowed
> > > > steps I got invalid data from initially valid data. That cannot be
> > correct.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > No.  See sec. 7.5.7
> > >
> > >    If a non-presence container does not have any child nodes, the
> > >    container may or may not be present in the XML encoding.
> > >
> > >
> > > Just because your retrieval does not contain the NP-container, that
> > > does not mean the NP-container was not present in the server for the
> > > mandatory-stmt validation.
> > 
> > I agree, but these valid data were correctly printed into invalid data. I
> > do not think printing is allowed to change the validity of data.
> > 
> > Michal
> > 
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > > Michal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Monday, June 24, 2019 18:52 CEST, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <
> > > > rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Michal,
> > > > >
> > > > > My thoughts:
> > > > >
> > > > > According to 7.5.1:
> > > > >
> > > > >    In the first style, the container has no meaning of its own,
> > existing
> > > > >    only to contain child nodes.  In particular, the presence of the
> > > > >    container node with no child nodes is semantically equivalent to
> > the
> > > > >    absence of the container node.  YANG calls this style a "non-
> > presence
> > > > >    container".  This is the default style.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence your request (because the NP container does not have any
> > > > > children)
> > > > is equivalent to:
> > > > >
> > > > >  <TOP>
> > > > >    <L/>
> > > > >  </TOP>
> > > > >
> > > > > which fails the "mandatory" check.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Rob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michal Vaško
> > > > > > Sent: 24 June 2019 17:39
> > > > > > To: netmod <netmod@ietf.org>
> > > > > > Subject: [netmod] mandatory choice with non-presence container
> > > > > > case
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > I have encountered a situation that I think is not covered by
> > > > > > RFC
> > > > 7950. My
> > > > > > specific use-case was as follows.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > model:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > container TOP {
> > > > > >   leaf L {
> > > > > >     type empty;
> > > > > >   }
> > > > > >   choice A {
> > > > > >     mandatory true;
> > > > > >     container C;
> > > > > >   }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > data:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <TOP>
> > > > > >   <L/>
> > > > > >   <C/>
> > > > > > </TOP>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Parsing was successful, but printing these data back to XML
> > produced:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <TOP>
> > > > > >   <L/>
> > > > > > </TOP>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and parsing this correctly failed with missing mandatory choice.
> > > > According
> > > > > > to section 7.5.7 [1], I think the C container could be omitted
> > > > > > but the whole situation does not seem correct. Thank you for any
> > input.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Michal
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.5.7
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > netmod mailing list
> > > > > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > netmod mailing list
> > > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > > >
> > 
> > 
>