Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Fri, 12 October 2018 16:30 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 CE998130E06 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.456, 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, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 uAKKZNtjML_o for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
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 1BEE5130E3E for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20852; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1539361809; x=1540571409; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=nGItOjInJ3If8KMT2bvCQQ4udcwTiynvgf/ubf13OcI=; b=H/3Xl3jndm1lPiBFj9/ZjDVkGaONgnbKL57CiMMKBpVVWzoAWm5J07S9 kGIQT0n2iEvvhIby1XoT7PnrM3TyGz0OLr5fjCJJuUKWN9JVQUJ52CcrK OY9oksgAa1OlhiIZ4Ex5RGUNLrexToW15G9qCuTdz949pw2dFFaQEp3N7 Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AHAAAaysBb/xbLJq0ZAUoZAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBAYFTAgEBAQEBCwEBgQsBgkkSKIN1iHWNOiWXBxSBZg2?= =?us-ascii?q?EbAKEfTYLDQEDAQECAQECbSiFOQEBAQMBIwpMBQsJAhEEAQEBIAMEAwICRgk?= =?us-ascii?q?IBg0GAgEBF4MFgXoIiHSBPJtNgS4fhFiEYotdgUE/gTkMgl+ESwELBwFVgku?= =?us-ascii?q?CVwKeHAmQUgYXgU+Eb4Jrhm2PboY2gUoMJWRxMxoIGxU7gmyCTo4JPjCKDg8?= =?us-ascii?q?XgicBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,373,1534809600"; d="scan'208,217";a="7192012"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Oct 2018 16:30:06 +0000
Received: from [10.61.220.128] ([10.61.220.128]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w9CGU4YY005112; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:30:05 GMT
To: Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com>
Cc: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, "Walker, Jason (Jason_Walker2@comcast.com)" <Jason_Walker2@comcast.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <AM0PR06MB4083426FA0F1D3F6515F2ECFE7E70@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <87zhvlvpts.fsf@nic.cz> <AM0PR06MB40833D8AED0744BB597394E7E7E00@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <d322e012-2767-a045-767a-ddf57649f36e@cisco.com> <AM0PR06MB4083B172F2424F1EEF08CFA0E7E00@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20181010182529.rhbu56qx4ogpb3st@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <AM0PR06MB4083AB058834759ECEA3FEEEE7E00@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHQKz-S2jcqeoJCtuG9U0DxOOw4musJz4DzwEtbCrEjqYA@mail.gmail.com> <DB6PR06MB4085D91F66023AC98122FEDFE7E10@DB6PR06MB4085.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHRR92w3ouFmi6igg+AN=TM7BKfnaMiweOPxq_t9WTvvyg@mail.gmail.com> <7308ac7c-aa29-8a3d-a79a-5c70b8d3f5ef@cisco.com> <AM0PR06MB40839FD87E10433E10B4377CE7E20@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <884fca1e-7366-b7a6-c588-0e64b3d032a0@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 17:30:05 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR06MB40839FD87E10433E10B4377CE7E20@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0282843CF8AFD4B524FFB6B9"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.220.128, [10.61.220.128]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IJVM8jp7MmpsdxFmmBNdJINA_RA>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object
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: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:30:12 -0000

On 12/10/2018 17:08, Michael Rehder wrote:
>
> The mandatory statement in that case is ignored (I’ve pointed out the 
> RNG and Schematron lack of enforcement).
>
OK, I'm not familiar with RNG and Schematron.

> WHEN trumps the mandatory status (via explicit mandatory or implicit 
> mandatory via min-elements 1)
>
So I think that you are asking for mandatory to trump a when condition.  
Can you provide a concrete example where this is required, or even useful?

A solution here, that doesn't require any changes in the YANG language, 
would be to just move the when condition, down to each of the child 
nodes that are not marked as mandatory.

But, sorry, at the moment I'm still at a loss to see how where this 
would actually be useful.

Thanks,
Rob

> Thanks
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*Robert Wilton [mailto:rwilton@cisco.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2018 12:06 PM
> *To:* Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com>
> *Cc:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>om>; Walker, Jason 
> (Jason_Walker2@comcast.com) <Jason_Walker2@comcast.com>om>; netmod@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects 
> doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 11/10/2018 19:05, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Michael Rehder
>     <Michael.Rehder@amdocs.com <mailto:Michael.Rehder@amdocs.com>> wrote:
>
>         I think the wording is relevant - something can be conditional
>         but still required.
>
> Yes, but I think that this is already expressed by a node that has 
> both a when condition and mandatory statement.
>
>
> container a {
>    container x {
>      when "some condition";
>      leaf foo {
>        mandatory true;
>      }
>      leaf bar {
>        ...
>      }
>    }
>    container y {
>      leaf baz {
>        mandatory true;
>      }
>      leaf tee {
>        ...
>      }
>    }
> }
> a/x/foo is conditional (due to when) but required (if the when condition is met).
> a/x/bar is conditional (due to when) but optional (if the when condition is met).
> a/y/baz is unconditional but required.
> a/y/tee is unconditional but optional.
>
>         It should be clarified that elements become implicitly
>         “mandatory false” when a “when” statement is used.
>
> But they don't.
>
>
>         I would like to see an enhancement to YANG to control this
>         behavior, to allow the mandatory status to be enforced.
>
>         That is, support also “conditionally required” instead of only
>         the current “conditionally optional”.
>
> I'm trying to understand what this would even mean.
>
> Taking your original example, but with "enforce-mandatory-status":
>
>           leaf AssignmentMechanism {
>              type enumeration {
>                enum "DHCP";
>                enum "Static";
>              }
>              mandatory true;
>              description "The address assignment mechanism.";
>            }
>            list IPAddresses {
>              when "../AssignmentMechanism = 'Static'" {
>                enforce-mandatory-status;
>              }  key Address;
>              min-elements 1;
>              
>              leaf Address {
>                type capit:IPv4Address;
>                description "An ipv4 address.";
>              }
>             }
>
>
> So this means that list IPaddresses must have at least one element 
> regardless of whether the when condition holds. I.e. no matter whether 
> the assignment is DHCP or Static there must always be at least one 1 
> address configured.  But I don't understand what this actually means - 
> it seems like a contradiction.  What am I missing?  Please can you 
> give a concrete example (in YANG) of what behaviour you are looking for.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
> /“Amdocs’ email platform is based on a third-party, worldwide, 
> cloud-based system. Any emails sent to Amdocs will be processed and 
> stored using such system and are accessible by third party providers 
> of such system on a limited basis. Your sending of emails to Amdocs 
> evidences your consent to the use of such system and such processing, 
> storing and access”./
>