Re: [netmod] [Netconf] What should a server response be? - depending on NP-containers

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Vladimir Vassilev <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 08/23/2016 09:33 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:42:34AM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> >> On 08/23/2016 12:08 AM, Alex Campbell wrote:
> >>> The intention in this case is obviously to evaluate the 'must'
> >>> statement if
> >>> the container contains any values; what would break if we said that
> >>>
> >>>      A non-presence container exists in the data tree if and only if it
> >>>      has
> >>>      any children which exist in the data tree.
> >>>
> >>> thus disallowing the existence of empty NP-containers in the data
> >>> tree?
> >> The question is where is the misunderstanding.
> >>
> >>     "If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence
> >>     container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in
> >>     the tree."
> >>
> >> What does this mean? I believe there is confusion based on "the tree"
> >> refering not to the data tree but the Xpath context. At least I hoped
> >> until
> >> I realized the text was introduced as a solution to Y41 'clarification
> >> of
> >> "must" in NP-container'. That definitely means it addresses the must
> >> statements in the non-presence containers and it means "the tree" as
> >> in the
> >> data tree.
> > My reading is that 'tree' refers to the 'accessible tree' used earlier
> > in the sentence. The accessible tree itself is defined just above the
> > quoted sentence. If my reading of the text is correct, then the
> > obvious clarification would be:
> >
> > OLD
> >
> >     If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence
> >     container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in
> >     the tree.
> >
> > NEW
> >
> >     If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence
> >     container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in
> >     the accessible tree.
> >
> > /js
> >
> So should the must statements defined in the non-presence container
> which is now part of the accessible tree be evaluated or not?

They are evaluated.  See Section 7.5.3:

   When a datastore is validated, all "must" constraints are
   conceptually evaluated once for each node in the accessible tree (see
   Section 6.4.1).


/martin