[netmod] Question about default values for data nodes added in revised modules
Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Fri, 13 December 2024 12:43 UTC
Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.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 5C1D3C14F695 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 04:43:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UAn4yx-DsJRK for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 04:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBBACC14F5E7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 04:43:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Y8pns3B0vz6K92Q for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 20:40:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.13]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B190140B18 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 20:43:23 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500007.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.172) by frapeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 13:43:23 +0100
Received: from frapeml500007.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.172]) by frapeml500007.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.172]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.039; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 13:43:23 +0100
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Question about default values for data nodes added in revised modules
Thread-Index: AdtNXD61q+xt77dFSS2Yy92sDH4Pqw==
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 12:43:23 +0000
Message-ID: <123cd10179f340b8b419168798df4f99@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.203.246.202]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_123cd10179f340b8b419168798df4f99huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: GGGDTQEC43VGYR6W7ZS2YQGXZ7M27CVZ
X-Message-ID-Hash: GGGDTQEC43VGYR6W7ZS2YQGXZ7M27CVZ
X-MailFrom: Italo.Busi@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netmod.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netmod] Question about default values for data nodes added in revised modules
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/p2MExPZrHZZWT0ApL-oJ0pxXnA0>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netmod-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netmod-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netmod-leave@ietf.org>
I have a doubt about how default values work when they are defined for data nodes added in a module revision
Let's consider for example adding the following YANG data node in a module revision:
leaf foo {
type boolean;
default false;
}
Implementations of the previous revision of the module may have already supported vendor-specific mechanisms to set the applied configuration for foo to true
After the implementation is upgraded to support the new module revision, the following situation can appear:
* No value of foo is present in the running DS
* The value of foo in the operational DS shall be true to reflect the applied configuration
Would this implementation be a valid/compliant?
>From previous discussion it seems not since it is not properly supporting the default statement for the leaf foo:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/y6rrP5avzNBh2-TkXkOTdENcmi4/
However, section 5.3.4 of RFC8342 says:
o system: represents configuration provided by the system itself.
Examples of system configuration include applied configuration for
an always-existing loopback interface, or interface configuration
that is auto-created due to the hardware currently present in the
device.
Can we consider in this case that the configuration of the foo leaf is provided by the system?
If that's not possible, the alternative options could be:
1. Implementations of the previous revision should declare, via a deviation statement, that the default value of the leaf foo is removed when they are upgraded to implement the revised module
2. No default value should be defined for the leaf foo in the revised module
Italo