Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Thu, 11 October 2018 18:48 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3250212008A for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q9ae_CK7JRqc for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x242.google.com (mail-lj1-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47846130ED0 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x242.google.com with SMTP id 63-v6so9193626ljs.4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0bmAysdM6iFX5cPTXD94UpycqPc2a+4nRYT/IBOpvHs=; b=Eq99R/TjmsIw3vao4kGR/Ab1jqtgSxRu2fw6WF5PENSzbbh4Mo5rdE4bP2uwHHFWgY eKKRInp5H7l1RqLD9D5QjckIcZFIrVxJMvtvnXz0MczDEQounEQ2fJpZi8eh8NiVN//y CORWm18c3uaWc2+aLopvSJp46CL5MoUfIfcRhzqGlp9hItM/DFBzU5sRu9/HNv9UcFsd gXOyxajwBmFhZBG+TBSbZNbzkPmbyBjyQjEO+02M0AHoe72N29f+nl/n860zzYsYbZlv R50+MFPnLwOsRBoE0K0Xjo2Dk1IsJcrqFY4xNQaEMjJFwekCff7aS7enviiNSDWQm1d/ DCGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0bmAysdM6iFX5cPTXD94UpycqPc2a+4nRYT/IBOpvHs=; b=JBE3LEi69n2bV0g9t1/YF1s4t7WqGynQkUgaVZyvIMgaUcrjtL6/jyelypqjmQG2wT ALrnvZDV7BByWB/4wYPOPxRRavYxwfOjSO70VDEEGqkrxBcx1bd/OQi87T7xsYZeoYyJ rjL/3cOiP/X8i6hZ1eGKedCaS7EgbjRTqofPWcA7mHm9xlS1qxCS/CB2Y31U7LNofegU X3efn0UF5QIwlrByXubATHtzxF4COAOFi25gVqwSPowJbP19K+EbCxYV2t4F2ocH08I0 cE8nZ0LhYeEIY8Tc3hlr97p/VoIlNXxnQhJDI58jT1u70eA1HPiJyZuL/v0TS353NoXA RBdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoj2C4lc+bebAkTdHwzJCDlJB9kq00xtlAxKYkekdqLNs1NtJCMp MY6C8wiTE4jtpDqqEzdqAzD8iSqlfVGTPur2DqYEfw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60seoxpJT2VELZanQrogmwVSa4FiSxJzD01GcHghMSux9MMfLpOuVgCmmQwK9obfcSG4BuMhywXJ9k9DFhStfM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:810e:: with SMTP id d14-v6mr1997693ljg.170.1539283693162; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a19:f811:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR06MB408599478F23AD524F2840BCE7E10@DB6PR06MB4085.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM0PR06MB4083426FA0F1D3F6515F2ECFE7E70@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <87zhvlvpts.fsf@nic.cz> <AM0PR06MB40833D8AED0744BB597394E7E7E00@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <d322e012-2767-a045-767a-ddf57649f36e@cisco.com> <AM0PR06MB4083B172F2424F1EEF08CFA0E7E00@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20181010182529.rhbu56qx4ogpb3st@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <AM0PR06MB4083AB058834759ECEA3FEEEE7E00@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHQKz-S2jcqeoJCtuG9U0DxOOw4musJz4DzwEtbCrEjqYA@mail.gmail.com> <DB6PR06MB4085D91F66023AC98122FEDFE7E10@DB6PR06MB4085.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHRR92w3ouFmi6igg+AN=TM7BKfnaMiweOPxq_t9WTvvyg@mail.gmail.com> <DB6PR06MB408599478F23AD524F2840BCE7E10@DB6PR06MB4085.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:48:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHT4fTtQGOmhN0-nbqQx3ebCm-rtJuVwL_CWa3NyhCB+DA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@amdocs.com>
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Walker, Jason (Jason_Walker2@comcast.com)" <Jason_Walker2@comcast.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bd700e0577f86945"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/fWLXZgx8QJow6zm8xys4U1otejs>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 18:48:21 -0000
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@amdocs.com> wrote: > There is no specific text - the text just says it is “conditional”. > > However the implementation forces it optional: > > - The RNG file makes it optional (I’m not actually running this > for various reasons so I’m just interpreting the file generated – maybe I > misunderstand RNG) > > - Schematron doesn’t check for its existence (like it does for a > mandatory choice case) > > > So change the implementation so it conforms to the spec. > Thanks > > Mike > Andy > > > *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:06 PM > *To:* Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com> > *Cc:* Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; > Walker, Jason (Jason_Walker2@comcast.com) <Jason_Walker2@comcast.com>; > netmod@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't > ensure presence of the mandatory object > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Michael Rehder < > Michael.Rehder@amdocs.com> wrote: > > I think the wording is relevant - something can be conditional but still > required. > > It should be clarified that elements become implicitly “mandatory false” > when a “when” statement is used. > > > > I would like to see an enhancement to YANG to control this behavior, to > allow the mandatory status to be enforced. > > That is, support also “conditionally required” instead of only the current > “conditionally optional”. > > > > > > > > leaf foo { > > when "../some-other-node = 5"; > > type int32; > > mandatory true; > > } > > > > > > This leaf is mandatory if the when-expr is true. > > Where is the text in 7950 that says this mandatory true is ignored if > when-stmt is present? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > Mike > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:52 PM > *To:* Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com> > *Cc:* Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; > Walker, Jason (Jason_Walker2@comcast.com) <Jason_Walker2@comcast.com>; > netmod@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't > ensure presence of the mandatory object > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Michael Rehder < > Michael.Rehder@amdocs.com> wrote: > > Sure. > > I think the RFC is unclear since it seems that the semantics are > consistent in the back-end checks. > One can read the RFC and not notice by its absence that the when clause > doesn't require anything to be present. > > The "when" statement makes its parent data definition statement > conditional. > Should be > The "when" statement makes its parent data definition statement > conditional and optional. > > > > This is not correct. > > > > Step 1) if-feature makes the schema node conditional > > > > Step 2) when-stmt makes instances of the schema-node conditional > > > > Step 3) YANG validation applies to instances of data nodes (or the YANG > default value if applicable) > > > > Step 2 is only relevant if Step 1 is true or non-existent > > Step 3 is only relevant if Step 2 is true or non-existent > > > > Andy > > > > > > I think there should be a more definite statement about this overriding > any mandatory status of the parent data definition statement. > Like > "Any mandatory status of the parent data definition statement > (mandatory statement, min-element statement etc.) is overridden by this > statement and made non-mandatory." > > That would have made the side-effect of "when" on other declarations > clearer. > > Thanks > mike > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de > ] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:25 PM > > To: Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com> > > Cc: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>; Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>; > > netmod@ietf.org; Walker, Jason (Jason_Walker2@comcast.com) > > <Jason_Walker2@comcast.com> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't > > ensure presence of the mandatory object > > > > Michael, > > > > what matters here is what the YANG specification (RFC 7950) says. Is > there a > > reason to believe the IPAddresses list in your example can be absent or > have no > > elements based on what RFC 7950 says? Or do we talk about a shortcoming > of > > RFC 6110? > > > > /js > > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 06:17:26PM +0000, Michael Rehder wrote: > > > If the list has a "when" clause the RNG file actually produces a > "OneOrMore" > > which has a choice of <empty> or the list so it actually doesn't enforce > the > > presence at least one row of the list (unless I'm mistaken in my > reading). > > > <oneOrMore> > > > <choice> > > > <empty/> > > > <element name="IPAddresses"> > > > <element name="Address"> > > > <ref name="types__IPv4Address"/> > > > </element> > > > <empty/> > > > </element> > > > </choice> > > > </oneOrMore> > > > > > > A leaf/container would be a simpler example but would result in the > same > > lack of enforcement of the mandatory status of an element with a "when" > > clause. > > > > > > This RNG seems consistent with the Schematron rules that "when" makes > > something optional. > > > > > > > > > I think a workaround would be choice with mandatory true and a when > clause > > on the cases. This would ensure that at least one case is present since > the > > mandatory clause implements a Schematron existence constraint. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwilton@cisco.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 11:33 AM > > > > To: Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com>; Ladislav Lhotka > > > > <lhotka@nic.cz>; netmod@ietf.org > > > > Cc: Walker, Jason (Jason_Walker2@comcast.com) > > > > <Jason_Walker2@comcast.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects > > > > doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object > > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > I think that the YANG below already enforces what you want, or > > > > otherwise I don't follow your issue. > > > > > > > > The YANG below is valid in two cases: > > > > > > > > (1) AssignmentMechanism = DHCP, and IPAddresses is not present in > > > > the config (due to the when statement). > > > > (2) AssignmentMechanism = Static, IPAddresses exists and has at > > > > least one element (due to min-elements 1). > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/10/2018 16:23, Michael Rehder wrote: > > > > > Container "foo" would be mandatory if not for the "when" child > element. > > > > > With the "when" child element, the logic becomes "inverted" and > > > > > the > > > > constraint is a negative one of "disallowed under certain condition". > > > > > > > > > > The UC is for enforcement in REST API payloads. > > > > > For a practical example: > > > > > > > > > > leaf AssignmentMechanism { > > > > > type enumeration { > > > > > enum "DHCP"; > > > > > enum "Static"; > > > > > } > > > > > mandatory true; > > > > > description "The address assignment mechanism."; > > > > > } > > > > > list IPAddresses { > > > > > when "../AssignmentMechanism = 'Static'"; > > > > > key Address; > > > > > min-elements 1; > > > > > > > > > > leaf Address { > > > > > type capit:IPv4Address; > > > > > description "An ipv4 address."; > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > There is no way in the IPAddresses list to enforce that there is > > > > > at least one IP > > > > Address when the assignment method is "Static". > > > > > One could put a "must" on "AssignmentMechanism" to ensure at least > > > > > one > > > > element of the IPAddresses list when "Static", but I don't see this > > > > as a good schema design, to have the controlling attribute check > controlled > > attributes. > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate that this semantic can't be changed in YANG at this > point. > > > > > Could the "when" statement have a modifying child element to state > > > > > that the > > > > mandatory status of the element is to be enforced? > > > > > Like > > > > > container foo { > > > > > when "condition" { > > > > > enforce-mandatory-status; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > There is already back-end for existential checks for mandatory > > > > > choice so this > > > > seems reasonably consistent to me. > > > > > I appreciate there are existing issues for "when" but I don't see > > > > > why this > > > > would make things any worse. > > > > > In fact by promoting a better dependency "direction" between > > > > > schema > > > > elements, think it could simplify things (so I naively think :) ). > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Mike > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lhotka@nic.cz] > > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:28 AM > > > > >> To: Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com>; netmod@ietf.org > > > > >> Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects > > > > >> doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object > > > > >> > > > > >> Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com> writes: > > > > >> > > > > >>> I have a question about “when” and mandatory objects. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> It seems to me that the implemented semantics of “when” are > > > > >>> really > > > > >> “optional when”, in that the enclosing object can be absent even > > > > >> though it is mandatory and the “when” clause holds true. > > > > >>> The RFC could be clearer about this. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Example > > > > >>> > > > > >>> leaf color { > > > > >>> enumeration { > > > > >>> enum “blue”; > > > > >>> enum “black”; > > > > >>> } > > > > >>> mandatory true; > > > > >>> } > > > > >>> container foo { > > > > >>> when ../color = ‘blue’; > > > > >>> etc. > > > > >>> } > > > > >>> > > > > >>> “foo” is optional due to the presence of the “when” statement > > > > >>> even though the object is mandatory (same is true for mandatory > > > > >>> leaf, > > > > >>> min-elements=1 list etc.). > > > > >> Maybe you intended to have, e.g., a "mandatory true" leaf inside > > > > >> "container foo"? > > > > >> > > > > >>> This is considered valid XML for the above > > > > >>> <color>blue</color> > > > > >> Yes, it is, under current YANG rules, no matter what "etc." > > > > >> stands for. Note that evaluation of the XPath expression in this > > > > >> case (with "foo" missing) requires the peculiar procedure of sec. > 7.21.5 > > in RFC 7950. > > > > >> > > > > >>> In my view this makes conditionally variant schemas “loose” in > > > > >>> their enforcement (some scenarios can use choice but it doesn’t > > > > >>> cover everything). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I think that mandatory should be respected for the enclosing > > > > >>> objects of a “when” statement. That is, a mandatory object must > > > > >>> be present when its “when” clause holds true and a Schematron > > > > >>> statement should enforce that. > > > > >> In fact, this is one case where the DSDL mapping (RFC 6110) > > > > >> deviates from YANG 1.0. Nodes that mandatory aren't enclosed in > > > > >> the RELAX NG <optional> pattern, and are then required no matter > what > > any "when" > > > > >> statements say (because RELAX NG validation comes before > > Schematron). > > > > >> > > > > >>> What is the rationale behind the current YANG rules behavior, > > > > >>> that the “when” Schematron mapping doesn’t check for presence of > > > > >>> the enclosing mandatory object? > > > > >> FWIW, I have been repeatedly protesting against this behaviour > > > > >> but without much luck. See for example > > > > >> > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg14012.htm > > > > >> l > > > > >> > > > > >> As a result, "when" is the trickiest feature in YANG by far. > > > > >> > > > > >> Lada > > > > >> > > > > >>> thanks > > > > >>> Mike Rehder > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Ladislav Lhotka > > > > >> Head, CZ.NIC Labs > > > > >> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > > > > “Amdocs’ email platform is based on a third-party, worldwide, > > > > > cloud-based > > > > system. Any emails sent to Amdocs will be processed and stored using > > > > such system and are accessible by third party providers of such > > > > system on a limited basis. Your sending of emails to Amdocs > > > > evidences your consent to the use of such system and such processing, > > storing and access”. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > netmod mailing list > > > > > netmod@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > “Amdocs’ email platform is based on a third-party, worldwide, > cloud-based > > system. Any emails sent to Amdocs will be processed and stored using such > > system and are accessible by third party providers of such system on a > limited > > basis. Your sending of emails to Amdocs evidences your consent to the > use of > > such system and such processing, storing and access”. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > netmod mailing list > > > netmod@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Campus+Ring+1+%7C+28759+Bremen+%7C+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g> > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > “Amdocs’ email platform is based on a third-party, worldwide, cloud-based > system. Any emails sent to Amdocs will be processed and stored using such > system and are accessible by third party providers of such system on a > limited basis. Your sending of emails to Amdocs evidences your consent to > the use of such system and such processing, storing and access”. > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > *“Amdocs’ email platform is based on a third-party, worldwide, cloud-based > system. Any emails sent to Amdocs will be processed and stored using such > system and are accessible by third party providers of such system on a > limited basis. Your sending of emails to Amdocs evidences your consent to > the use of such system and such processing, storing and access”.* > > > > *“Amdocs’ email platform is based on a third-party, worldwide, cloud-based > system. Any emails sent to Amdocs will be processed and stored using such > system and are accessible by third party providers of such system on a > limited basis. Your sending of emails to Amdocs evidences your consent to > the use of such system and such processing, storing and access”.* >
- [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects … Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Michael Rehder
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Alex Campbell
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory obje… Alex Campbell