Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node

heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> Wed, 06 September 2017 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <heas@shrubbery.net>
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 D34A51321AA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.715
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.715 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5Lz6ptLnhhxO for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from guelah.shrubbery.net (guelah.shrubbery.net [198.58.5.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C82132192 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by guelah.shrubbery.net (Postfix, from userid 7053) id 65AC4864AA; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 01:47:57 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:47:57 +0000
From: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
To: netmod@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170906014757.GD31035@shrubbery.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170905190151.fizr5dljufbyuyty@elstar.local>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/G7vrMade81rKtMyIpeAXbBI2-aU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:48:00 -0000

> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:44:29AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Blind cut-and-paste is not a good design goal.
> 
> Definitions that stand on their own since they are not context
> sensitive is IMHO a plus. If I am n pages down a YANG tree and I want
> to know whether I look at config false or config true leaves,
> searching backwards is really painful if you read on paper (oh, how

Isn't this something that is fixed with display (human representation)
tools?

> > I still don't know what it means to define hierarchical data and say the
> > parent is deprecated but not the descendant nodes.
> 
> It is odd but can happen anyway. A current augmentation of something
> that got deprecated likely stays current. I would hope that tools warn
> if they see this but that's it.

How is anything ever expunged if parsing tools do not refuse to load
a module that depends on a deprecated node that it is attempting to
augment?