[netmod] Clarification wanted regarding applicability of YANG 1.1 issues list to YANG 1.0 implementations

"Ivory, William" <william.ivory@intl.att.com> Fri, 20 October 2017 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <william.ivory@intl.att.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 2AA88132F65 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 02:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jCERKd1Qllqg for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 02:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC64D132D54 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 02:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049287.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v9K9uPDd004040 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 05:58:59 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2dq5xyyssj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 05:58:58 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9K9wvfk013450 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 05:58:57 -0400
Received: from mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.241]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9K9wnCa013391 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 05:58:52 -0400
Received: from gbcdccas01.intl.att.com (gbcdccas01.intl.att.com [135.76.180.9]) by mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 09:58:30 GMT
Received: from GBCDCMBX03.intl.att.com ([135.76.31.134]) by gbcdccas01.intl.att.com ([135.76.180.9]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:58:29 +0100
From: "Ivory, William" <william.ivory@intl.att.com>
To: "'netmod@ietf.org'" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Clarification wanted regarding applicability of YANG 1.1 issues list to YANG 1.0 implementations
Thread-Index: AdNJidZIVklg+cddQzm1fkS6JNKTVA==
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 09:57:27 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 09:58:27 +0000
Message-ID: <E3378E0605547F4E854DEE0CB1116AB025DD28@gbcdcmbx03.intl.att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.160.174.78]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E3378E0605547F4E854DEE0CB1116AB025DD28gbcdcmbx03intlatt_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-10-20_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1710200145
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/wGWsBIi4lw5qZEBa047YTWzLXDc>
Subject: [netmod] Clarification wanted regarding applicability of YANG 1.1 issues list to YANG 1.0 implementations
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 09:59:02 -0000

Hi,

I've asked about evaluating must statements on unconfigured non-presence containers here before, but realise I never got a definitive answer on whether the clarification in the YANG 1.1 issues list actually applies to YANG 1.0, or only YANG 1.1:

YANG 1.0 XPATH context: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020#section-6.4.1

  *   No mention of non-presence containers

YANG 1.0 errata: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6020

  *   No mention of non-presence containers

YANG 1.1 Issues list: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html#sec-42

  *   Clarification of handling of non-presence containers for XPATH context / validation

YANG 1.1 XPATH context: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-6.4.1

  *   'If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in the accessible tree.'

As you can see from the links above, the errata for YANG 1.0 does NOT include the clarification, whereas the text of YANG 1.1 (RFC 7950) does.

Thanks,

William