Re: [netmod] Does the YANG "status" statement inherit from its parent node?

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

I think that it should be a error to have a current node under a 
deprecated node in the same module, and similarly for 
deprecated/obsolete.  I.e. to be consistent with the following text from 
7950 sec 7.21.2:

'If a definition is "current", it MUST NOT reference a "deprecated" 
or"obsolete" definition within the same module.'

I agree that it is useful if tools generate warnings if a module 
augments (or references) a deprecated or obsolete node (as per Juergen's 
comments below).

I don't have an issue with explicitly marking the child nodes as 
deprecated/obsolete, but intuitively I would have expected this to 
inherit like the config statement.

Rob


On 20/12/2016 20:15, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 09:03:35PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> However, we could have said that a current node under a deprecated
>> node (etc) in the same module is an error, in order to force people
>> (through the useage of YANG validators) to detect and fix this.
>>
> Is it an error or just something that deserves a warning and the
> author's attention? I am asking since we also have augmentations and
> if I mark a container as deprecated, this will not immediately cause
> an module augmenting the containter to get updated, hence I end up
> with definitions marked current in a deprecated container. And there
> are other situations where definitions may not be of the same status,
> i.e., a module (without import by revision) uses a type or grouping
> that in later revisions got marked deprecated. I think all of these
> status mismatches are things tools should warn about but I am not sure
> these are hard errors, in particular for 'deprecated'. Things may lead
> to stronger warnings for definitions marked 'obsolete'.
>
> /js
>