Re: [netmod] ?==?utf-8?q? ?==?utf-8?q? ?= mandatory choice with non-presence container cas

Hi Andy,

On Monday, June 24, 2019 19:11 CEST, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote: 

> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Rob,
> > I think there is a problem in the RFC because using only allowed steps I
> > got invalid data from initially valid data. That cannot be correct.
> >
> >
> No.  See sec. 7.5.7
> 
>    If a non-presence container does not have any child nodes, the
>    container may or may not be present in the XML encoding.
> 
> 
> Just because your retrieval does not contain the NP-container, that does
> not mean the
> NP-container was not present in the server for the mandatory-stmt
> validation.

I agree, but these valid data were correctly printed into invalid data. I do not think printing is allowed to change the validity of data.

Michal

> 
> Regards,
> > Michal
> >
> >
> Andy
> 
> 
> > On Monday, June 24, 2019 18:52 CEST, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <
> > rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Michal,
> > >
> > > My thoughts:
> > >
> > > According to 7.5.1:
> > >
> > >    In the first style, the container has no meaning of its own, existing
> > >    only to contain child nodes.  In particular, the presence of the
> > >    container node with no child nodes is semantically equivalent to the
> > >    absence of the container node.  YANG calls this style a "non-presence
> > >    container".  This is the default style.
> > >
> > > Hence your request (because the NP container does not have any children)
> > is equivalent to:
> > >
> > >  <TOP>
> > >    <L/>
> > >  </TOP>
> > >
> > > which fails the "mandatory" check.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rob
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michal Vaško
> > > > Sent: 24 June 2019 17:39
> > > > To: netmod <netmod@ietf.org>
> > > > Subject: [netmod] mandatory choice with non-presence container case
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I have encountered a situation that I think is not covered by RFC
> > 7950. My
> > > > specific use-case was as follows.
> > > >
> > > > model:
> > > >
> > > > container TOP {
> > > >   leaf L {
> > > >     type empty;
> > > >   }
> > > >   choice A {
> > > >     mandatory true;
> > > >     container C;
> > > >   }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > data:
> > > >
> > > > <TOP>
> > > >   <L/>
> > > >   <C/>
> > > > </TOP>
> > > >
> > > > Parsing was successful, but printing these data back to XML produced:
> > > >
> > > > <TOP>
> > > >   <L/>
> > > > </TOP>
> > > >
> > > > and parsing this correctly failed with missing mandatory choice.
> > According
> > > > to section 7.5.7 [1], I think the C container could be omitted but the
> > > > whole situation does not seem correct. Thank you for any input.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Michal
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.5.7
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > netmod mailing list
> > > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >