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

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/12/2016 10:00, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     > On 22 Dec 2016, at 07:22, Randy Presuhn
> >     <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Hi -
> >     >
> >     > On 12/21/2016 3:55 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> >     >> <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     >> <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
> >     > ...
> >     >>    Perhaps I am blinded by the way @deprecate or __attribute__
> >     >>    ((deprecated)) or [[deprecated]] work in various programming
> >     >>    languages. All these annotations do not deprecate my code,
> >     they just
> >     >>    cause the generation of warnings so that I get aware of the
> >     issue and
> >     >>    can do my homework.
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> There are no protocols that let you manage orphaned data nodes
> >     >> without any parent.  No way to represent it in XML or JSON either.
> >     >> No way to specify a RESTCONF target resource that leaves out
> >     >> some intermediate data nodes.
> >     >
> >     > Deprecating (or obsoleting) a definition does not orphan data nodes.
> >     > Perhaps I'm blinded by the way SNMP works, but it seems to me that
> >     > a robust client will need to be able to process data corresponding
> >     > to deprecated (or obsolete) definitions.  Likewise, developers
> >     > of server-side software may find themselves in situations where
> >     > supporting obsolete definitions is a commercial necessity.  Things
> >     > certainly played out that way in the SNMP world.  I agree with
> >     Juergen
> >     > that tool-generated warnings seem to be the correct way to go.
> >
> >     I agree that making a node deprecated or obsolete doesn't mean
> >     that its descendants are orphaned, it just means they cannot be
> >     current, and then "current" shouldn't be the default status for
> >     them - also because the descendants may come from other modules
> >     (via groupings and augments) that cannot be changed.
> >
> >     Even if the default status is inherited, tools can still generate
> >     warnings. A data modeller can decide whether and where it makes
> >     sense to have the "status" statement explicitly, but isn't forced
> >     to do it everywhere.
> >
> >
> >
> > NETCONF and RESTCONF have no mechanisms for accessing data other than
> > top-down from the top-level YANG data node to the target node.
> > Removing an ancestor node from the server implementation effectively
> > removes
> > the entire subtree from the implementation.  (The value of the YANG
> > status-stmt
> > of the descendant nodes has nothing to do with it)
> 
> I agree that this certainly seems to be the case if a node is marked
> as obsolete.  It seems that it implicitly forces all child nodes to be
> obsolete as well regardless of which module they were defined in.

No I don't think this is correct.  If module B augment X in module A,
and X is obsolete, it does NOT mean that the augmented nodes in B are
automatically obsolete.  However, in an implementation that doesn't
implement X, the augmented nodes from B are obviously also not
implemented.


/martin