Re: [netmod] VRFY :Y09: introduce optional keys

> On 08 Jan 2015, at 10:21, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> The 2014-12-03 virtual interim meeting proposal is to adopt Y09-03.
> 
> The reasons for proposing Y09-03 (instead of Y09-02) were:
> 
>  1. The instance-identifier syntax proposed in Y09-02 doesn't work,
>     b/c empty strings and 0-values integers would also return "true"
>     in the expression "not(key)".
> 
>  But this turned out to be a false claim; the syntax proposed in
>  Y09-02 is correct.
> 
>  2. Y09-02 is tricky to implement in "common databases", since they
>     require values for all keys.

In some common databases (e.g. mongodb) a declaration of a key is just an instruction for the server to generate an index. I think it is more a limitation of NETCONF’s edit-config design.

An implication for both Y09-02 and Y09-03 is that if a key is not set at the time a list entry is created, it cannot be set afterwards. 

> 
>  But the idea for how to handle Y09-03 in these databases was to
>  store additional info that the default value is set.  The same
>  technique can be used to handle purely optional keys.
> 
> Thus, I prefer Y09-02.

Me too, Lada

> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C