Re: [netmod] datastore-specific constraints

Reshad,

> Should it be ignored or rejected?

Ignored, IMO. A rejection policy would bring little value, but lead to complications for clients and servers alike.

> Also not keen in foo-operational, since it’s in contradiction to NMDA’s goals.

+1

/jan

> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com>
> Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:53 AM
> To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
> Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] datastore-specific constraints
>  
> Lada, 
>  
> Maybe you could just skip the when and explain the behavior in the description? E.g.
>  
> leaf foo {
>  ...
>  description "Foo controls bla, bla. 
>   Any configured value will be ignored when auto-foo is true.";
> }
>  
> Best Regards,
> /jan
> 
> 
>> On 12 Dec 2018, at 15:33, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz <mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>> wrote:
>>  
>> Hi,
>> 
>> in some cases, constraints expressed with "when" or "must" may only be
>> intended for configuration datastores. A typical example is an
>> auto-negotiable parameter:
>> 
>> leaf auto-foo {
>>  type boolean;
>>  default true;
>>  description "If true, parameter 'foo' will be auto-negotiated.";
>> }
>> leaf foo {
>>  when "../auto-foo = 'false'";
>>  ...
>> }
>> 
>> This means that if auto-foo is true, it is impossible to configure the
>> foo parameter. However, even with auto-foo = true, it is desirable to
>> see the auto-negotiated value in <operational>, so, ideally, the "when"
>> constraint should not apply in <operational>.
>> 
>> How can this logic be modelled under NMDA? Is an extra leaf
>> "foo-operational" needed?
>> 
>> Thanks, Lada
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ladislav Lhotka
>> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> 