Re: [netmod] RFC 8342 : Query about NMDA Origin for Non-presence containers

[Rohit R Ranade <[e-mail]>]

Please find inline.

Rohit R Ranade


-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 27 September 2018 14:22
To: Rohit R Ranade <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netmod] RFC 8342 : Query about NMDA Origin for Non-presence containers

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:40:10AM +0000, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Section 5.3.4:
> "The
>    origin applies to all configuration nodes except non-presence
>    containers.  "
> 
> In ietf-origin YANG module:
>      md:annotation origin {
>        type origin-ref;
>        description
>          "The 'origin' annotation can be present on any configuration
>           data node in the operational state datastore.  It specifies
>           from where the node originated.  If not specified for a given
>           configuration data node, then the origin is the same as the
>           origin of its parent node in the data tree.  The origin for
>           any top-level configuration data nodes must be specified.";
>      }
> 
> 
> C.1.  System Example:
> The root node "system", is config-true and a non-presence container, 
> and in the example, does not have the  "origin" meta-data attribute
> 
> 
> Keeping all the above points in mind, which is the correct way ? Whether the top-level configuration node should contain the "origin" attribute for Non-presence containers ?
> 

Let me first clarify the difference between 'a node carrying an origin annotation' and 'an origin annotation applying to a node':

- Any node can 'carry an origin annotation' (but it may not apply to
  the node). If a node does not 'carry an origin annotation', then the
  parent node is inspected whether it carries an origin annotation.

- An origin annotation applys to a node if it is a node to which an
  origin annotation can be applied. Since non-presence containers have
  meaning by themself, the origin annotation does not apply to
  non-presence containers (but they may still 'carry an origin
  annotation'.

Given the requirement stated in the definition md:annotation origin, it seems that the "system" top-level container should have an origin annotation. (One can debate whether this requirement is too strict since in the example an origin annotation of the "system" top-level container would not apply to anything since all the nodes below "system" have explicit origin annotations.)
[Rohit R Ranade] So how to decide the origin annotation for top-level non-presence container. Consider the case of "nacm" root node of ietf-netconf-acm module which is a container. 
Consider that "enable-nacm" came via "intended" origin, and "read-default" came via "default" origin.
      +--rw nacm
         +--rw enable-nacm?            boolean
         +--rw read-default?           action-type
         +--rw write-default?          action-type
         +--rw exec-default?           action-type
[Rohit R Ranade] So how to decide the origin for the container, when its child may have mixed origin ?
/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>