Re: [netmod] Regarding origin-filter in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08

[Amar Jadagoud <[e-mail]>]

So do you mean that origin-filter needs to be applied on the response data
but origin annotation should not be provided in the rpc-reply?

On Wed 30 Jan, 2019, 4:05 PM Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail] wrote:

> Amar Jadagoud <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > Yes. I got your point. Thanks.
> >
> > One more question :
> >
> > Libyang does not return error if origin-filter is provided in the rpc
> > request without "with-origin" parameter as ietf-netconf-nmda module does
> > not mandate it.
>
> Yes, this is intentional.  "with-origin" is orthogonal from any
> filters.
>
> > So we consider it as with-origin scenario and provide
> > origin annotation in parent and child record.
>
> If the client didn't pass the "with-origin" parameter, the server
> should not fill in the "origin" annotations, even if "origin-filter"
> was passed.
>
>
> /martin
>
>
> > Does below point holds true
> > for this case too?
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Amar
> >
> > On Wed 30 Jan, 2019, 3:24 PM Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Amar Jadagoud <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > Hi martin,
> > > >
> > > > Yes. I got your point. But what should be the parent record
> annotation
> > > > value? Whether it should be intended or origin annotation itself
> should
> > > not
> > > > exist?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand your question, but if the "with-origin"
> > > parameter is present in the request, the reply will contain "origin"
> > > annotations on all nodes (including ancestors) that have it.  This
> > > handling is separate from any filters included.  So even if you filter
> > > for "system" you might get nodes in the ancestor hierarchy with origin
> > > "intended", if you provided "with-origin".
> > >
> > >
> > > /martin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Amar
> > > >
> > > > On Wed 30 Jan, 2019, 2:25 PM Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Amar Jadagoud <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have one doubt regarding origin-filter filtering in case of
> > > > > parent-child
> > > > > > hierarchy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If child class instance fields match with origin-filter value but
> > > parent
> > > > > > class instance fields does not, then what should be the rpc-reply
> > > > > content?
> > > > > > Does it need to include parent class instance record with only
> key
> > > fields
> > > > > > along with child class record or it should not include both
> parent
> > > and
> > > > > > child class instance record?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not special for origin-filter, but applies to all filters.
> > > > > The description of get-data says:
> > > > >
> > > > >        Any ancestor nodes (including list keys) of nodes selected
> by
> > > > >        the filters are included in the response.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this answers your question.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > /martin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Consider example given in 3.1.1.4 section of
> > > > > > draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08 :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <rpc message-id="102"
> > > > > >  xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
> > > > > >  <get-data xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-nmda"
> > > > > >  xmlns:ds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-datastores"
> > > > > >  xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
> > > > > >  <datastore>ds:operational</datastore>
> > > > > >  <subtree-filter>
> > > > > >  <bgp xmlns="http://example.com/ns/bgp"/>
> > > > > >  </subtree-filter>
> > > > > >  <origin-filter>or:intended</origin-filter>
> > > > > >  <origin-filter>or:system</origin-filter>
> > > > > >  <with-origin/>
> > > > > >  </get-data>
> > > > > >  </rpc>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  <rpc-reply message-id="102"
> > > > > >  xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
> > > > > >  <data xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-nmda">
> > > > > >  <bgp xmlns="http://example.com/ns/bgp"
> > > > > >  xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
> > > > > >  or:origin="or:intended">
> > > > > >  <peer>
> > > > > >  <name>2001:db8::2:3</name>
> > > > > >  <local-port or:origin="or:system">60794</local-port>
> > > > > >  <state>established</state>
> > > > > >  </peer>
> > > > > >  </bgp>
> > > > > >  </data>
> > > > > >  </rpc-reply>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the above example, user has provided origin-filter as system
> and
> > > > > > intended in the RPC request. So rpc-reply has both parent record
> with
> > > > > > "intended" origin and child record with "system" origin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What if user has provided only origin-filter="system" ? Do we
> need to
> > > > > > provide parent record with "intended" origin in the rpc-reply or
> > > should
> > > > > not
> > > > > > provide both parent and child record ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Amar
> > > > >
> > >
>