Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 06/11/2017 15:51, Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On November 6, 2017 10:21:19 AM Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lou,
>>
>> All of proposed solutions (A through D) allow the action or the RPC to
>> perform whatever behaviour that it wants.
>>
>> This issue is only about which datastore is used to evaluate and check
>> that the parameters for the action/rpc are valid.  E.g. if the
>> parameters use when, must, leaf-ref, or instance-identifier.
>>
>> So, to take option "A" for example: "A.  Always use <operational> for 1
>> and 2."
>>
>> One can still define a RPC that modifies another datastore ("edit-data"
>> in the NETCONF NMDA  draft is one such example).  But to check whether
>> the edit-data request can be performed, any input parameter constraints
>> would be evaluated against <operational>.  However, given that the input
>> parameters to edit-data don't contain any when, must, leaf-ref, or
>> instance-identifier statements then it makes absolutely no functional
>> difference which the datastore the parameters are evaluated in, since
>> the result will always be the same regardless.  But perhaps it just
>> feels a little odd that they are conceptually evaluated against
>> operational, even though the RPC only even affects one of the editable
>> configurable datastores.
>>
>
>
> Yes, which is why I've been assuming we'd end up with c.

But I think that to do C properly also requires a new optional statement 
in YANG to indicate where the Action/RPC parameters are evaluated (with 
the default being <operational> if the new statement isn't specified).

Most RPCs/Action statements seem to naturally apply to <operational>.

For the RPCs/Action statements that don't naturally apply to 
<operational>, it seems that it mostly doesn't matter where the 
parameters are evaluated.

At the moment, the set of remaining RPCs/Actions (don't apply to 
<operational> but do care about parameter evaluation) seems quite small:
  (i) RFC7517, if it defined a YANG model for the <partial-lock> RPC
  (ii) A partial datastore diff from a subtree in <intended> to 
<operational> might be another - it would want an instance-identifier 
path to the subtree in <intended>.
  (iii) Perhaps I2RS and dynamic datastores may also throw up some new 
examples.

Thanks,
Rob