To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>,
 Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
CC: NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <1512404811.1422.63.camel@nic.cz>
 <20171204.173431.1294203680272812703.mbj@tail-f.com>
 <1512407158.6635.8.camel@nic.cz>
 <CABCOCHRg7H=DbS1oxOhdq=dkQgAcL_r1ECSFgcU=DkE-vXwcOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <409e9bb5-fcbe-d94f-a7cb-cb7961d9fdb2@cisco.com>
From: Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <aa579364-ac89-36f4-8947-4a5eb1c6ba48@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:37:35 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <409e9bb5-fcbe-d94f-a7cb-cb7961d9fdb2@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2017 14:37:42.0026 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ee72b4e7-76e5-4867-e63b-08d53bedbe47
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM4PR07MB3428
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprBKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7tK7FerUog/8PxCweHJnFbnFh1Vw2
 i/kXG1ktTpzrY3Zg8ZjyeyOrx5IlP5k8Nl2+w+jR0n+RJYAlissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStj0TKr
 go+CFTu+r2VuYJzO28XIySEhYCJxYu41JhBbSOAwo8TnrX5djFxA9nFGid6DZ5hBHBaBXmaJ
 2ZvmMkJk2pgkrv9by97FyMEhLGAq0fmmDKRbRCBbYmbfZFYQm1lAXqJ75guo+kYmiVfnn4Al
 2ASMJKb2n2cBsXkF7CX2zukHi7MIqEh0XlrMDmKLCsRIHO6ZzgpRIyhxcuYTsHpOAVuJXZcb
 mSAWaEi0zpnLDmGLS9x6Mp8JZnHz1tnMEK8pSFzffJ0F5AgJgYmMEkeftkH9qSHx8MJfVogi
 X4mlp5qgGpYwSrRdj4RoaGCXWHGqGapIVuLo2TksELaWRMf0DYwgNqNAnMTONQtZIRp2sEv8
 v/yQBRQsEsCwOPdAEaI+WuLQsV9sEDULmCW+PTkHNVRG4vzVRSwTGHVmIfl0FpLvZiH5bhaS
 7xYwsqxiFC1OLS7OTTcy1kstykwuLs7P08tLLdnECEwvB7f81t3BuPq14yFGAQ5GJR5etklq
 UUKsiWXFlbmHGCU4mJVEeJn7gUK8KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR5T3ryRgkJpCeWpGan
 phakFsFkmTg4pRoYfddMuDTBQfNRqYvk2/Mcf4Qv3L7xgZ+zrLVoaubM65x7HWQ7r6aFmqfW
 yXFXHF0/ea+aaE3WbYn2wuOTWm9u9/3hwhhv+KTVMI3r0wOtrx7/ZZW+7i5m0ptg9rPgWnJZ
 CIsJ80/BO5ECPwvLo3zsD1hcj0g+aizFpSCuVDfhxba1E66dT+xWYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAlqk0
 bCsDAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/xiL93soYqM_EI7WLVnn2XNtXkXs>
Subject: Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA
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: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:37:48 -0000

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-12-05 11:04, Robert Wilton
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:409e9bb5-fcbe-d94f-a7cb-cb7961d9fdb2@cisco.com">
      <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABCOCHRg7H=DbS1oxOhdq=dkQgAcL_r1ECSFgcU=DkE-vXwcOg@mail.gmail.com">
        <div dir="ltr">
          <div class="gmail_extra">
            <div class="gmail_quote">
              <div>I see your point now.</div>
              <div>The server has to evaluate the when-stmts in
                operational.</div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      I think that this is probably down to implementation, but I don't
      think that this is necessarily required.  A server is meant to
      conform to 'when' statements in &lt;operational&gt; (e.g. if the
      system is in a normal steady state), but they are allowed to be
      violated, and I'm not expecting that a server would evaluate them
      (except perhaps to discover implementation bugs).  Further, if
      violations of when statements in &lt;operational&gt; are detected
      then I don't think that there is anything that the server can
      reasonable do.<br>
       <br>
    </blockquote>
    BALAZS: I always thought that if a when statement's argument was
    true but becomes false, all instance data that is set/written
    according to the schema nodes affected by the when statement shall
    be removed by the server.  So IMHO the server can and should do
    something about a violated when statement. <br>
    <br>
    Actually I would like a list of statements and constraints that MUST
    be satisfied in the different data stores. Speaking about syntactic
    versus semantic seems fluffy.<br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
Senior Specialist
Mobile: +36-70-330-7909              email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com">Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com</a> 
</pre>
  </body>
</html>