Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-02.txt

["Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)" <[e-mail]>]

So; to make this work the YANG property of the parent leaf in the config
data tree should be set to false to allow a reference to hardware-state,
correct?

Regards, Bart
 
Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 02:48:15PM +0000, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)
wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > If we pick the former, it will not be possible to configure a 
> > > component with a system controlled parent (unless you also add the 
> > > system controlled parent to the configuration).
> > > [Bart Bogaert] Is there a reason to only have this parent in the 
> > > state tree and not in the config tree?
> > 
> > I am not sure I understand the question.  Suppose the config tree is 
> > empty, and the system boots and populates the state tree with all 
> > detected harwdare.  Next, a client would like to pre-provision a 
> > module in a chassis that exists in state.  If the leafref is to the 
> > config tree, the client would have to create both the chassis and 
> > the module in the config tree, since the leafef would otherwise fail to
validate.
> > 
> > [Bart Bogaert] Ok, so you are looking for a solution that refers to 
> > an entry in the state tree.  I always thought that one could not 
> > refer from config to state but it seems I misunderstood this since 
> > this is exactly what you are proposing.
> > 
> > > If we pick the latter you will not get any validation (since it 
> > > has to be require-instance false).
> > >
> > > It is fine w/ me to change the type string to a leafref of the 
> > > former
> > type.
> > 
> > Correction: I am fine with changing the string to a leafref to state.
> > 
> > > [Bart Bogaert] If we leave it as a string it would mean that an 
> > > external application would have to check whether the value of the 
> > > string actually corresponds to a component that should exist (in 
> > > the case of a non-system-controlled parent)?
> > 
> > So are you ok with a leafref to state?
> > 
> > [Bart Bogaert] Since that seems possible this would solve the 
> > problem.  I'm checking this with our people.
> 
> Are you discussing leafref to a config false node with require 
> instance false?

Yes.

> I am not sure this is valid YANG.

It is valid,  section 9.9 on leafref says:

   If the referring node represents configuration data and the
   "require-instance" property (Section 9.9.3) is "true", the referred
   node MUST also represent configuration.



/martin