[netmod] validating a YANG action

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Thu, 02 May 2019 23:15 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 3EE4C120640 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2019 16:15:43 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 ciI66CxBc3ES for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2019 16:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (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 397C012064A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2019 16:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id z26so3755660ljj.2 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 May 2019 16:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lYkG28xq2QthLLiGvJuW0vPe6ju6CGkyZgN1Fs23WD0=; b=1SVGwmjDtCgi45W8O0L5P5kCQoKvAmIAXUMStufMcNVg5+KRdqJGyjLokg+xeGeYwN moYPTLSJL9anNvZ81FzZU0XIBlELWuQAZ8fNcb29CrbRvDDJ0GArPkZZQoz05NkMBrlk o5c+7Bio8AU4a235fbhVFLn1bEjwyNsOvWMOn3+irDFsPOngMKVSEqoloOCNBH9lcf10 EdEz9GvWEDi/RGXorRx78uZ/4rkwipbizX/99tiQsfIXdCfejhiTzdLpAZ5GzENTgaCj mLkqqGN8131JKNzW7YJ4vPuRVWkAnn5zgIMtF4qIzX9ovltl1uf5setnN+txQr6CO62e QdUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lYkG28xq2QthLLiGvJuW0vPe6ju6CGkyZgN1Fs23WD0=; b=BWulX9b45uBvUwlFicKsLCv4+kugTHAHjAQlQ6HaTvnLerqYqSB+LMOAUEa/wPYoQq FVya/6qc+Op/CI4nt1hmXIT5gt0LJHmSPHjAydw1rQE5aiuIIT4y7k7SXtTX3A/bTe2b 6AjNJUCs0QVuSL46l6uGrkPAqBw7IMzt4ZbB0gKD3l//di0L6lEa7bbK+45iS+ih3sMA utCqsZkb3iejAnCAUHjaYQDyI3n8HT8G/E9eYk3DWV5EeIdiiE95lxXwv6+rYROELIlP W8BUkHf9cVSCXWG+rZn4RhbHB65/IRb0wCxh5AKXNCsqIVJrPnxqvuOBnGXZrId7uFr7 aO4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWotcmoLw4rjrO1fs7L6yyNymfPMGNXLDNpq5CMNRvoBe8VvatW 6Res8igC+ywxhZxyAodE6/3mXvgUr5U03UP87Ue57T1l7mbAlg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyyjYv4S4sgNc9vqiLtmq+nDFmRK5WonfJHQwjSCR1nA51HyAfsHPkLKoReE8PhZS3bBuV9XJf9g1HplstMQ0Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9e9a:: with SMTP id f26mr910855ljk.170.1556838938845; Thu, 02 May 2019 16:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 16:15:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHS-nwPfgF-NCNqp5tdS=G3Fz_9s7RkvGNvHbLVq=jYCsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec39a60587efcff9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/icVmgSPi8E9kBAVxHtj5GrKleoM>
Subject: [netmod] validating a YANG action
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, 02 May 2019 23:15:43 -0000

Hi,

The text about invoking actions in RFC 7950, sec. 7.15 is not clear
about whether the ancestor data nodes have to exist.

sec 7.15.2, para 2:

   The <action> element contains a hierarchy of nodes that identifies
the node in the datastore.


The RFC does not say anything about if the data node is required to
exist or not.  There is no distinction between NP-container, P-container,
or list which are ancestors of the action node. It does not specify
which datastore, and that is not supplied in the <action> RPC.
The text specifies what must be in the <rpc> request, not in any datastore
or state data.

It seems like the intent is that no instance test is specified at all and
the corresponding ancestor nodes to the action node do not have to
exist for the action to be invoked. (The action may succeed or fail).
The issue is whether there is an existence-test before invoking the action.

Andy