[netmod] Clarification needed for YANG 1.1 XPATH context
William Ivory <wivory@Brocade.com> Thu, 25 February 2016 15:08 UTC
Return-Path: <wivory@Brocade.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2BF1B29F2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:08:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 z57o8mumnJwf for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:08:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:7a::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 402401B29ED for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:08:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048193.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with SMTP id u1PF4aML020948 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:08:27 -0800
Received: from brmwp-exmb12.corp.brocade.com ([208.47.132.227]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 216qrbqey2-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:08:26 -0800
Received: from EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.86) by BRMWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:08:22 -0700
Received: from EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.86) by EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:08:21 +0100
Received: from EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::44d8:98be:88a6:417a]) by EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::44d8:98be:88a6:417a%23]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:08:21 +0100
From: William Ivory <wivory@Brocade.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Clarification needed for YANG 1.1 XPATH context
Thread-Index: AdFv3R4BwHXZzI6xSlm06BqlW0gmXg==
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:08:09 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:07:13 +0000
Message-ID: <f790c7e329684d78bec27a1bfe150d6c@EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.212.156]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_f790c7e329684d78bec27a1bfe150d6cEMEAWPEXMB12corpbrocade_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-02-25_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1601100000 definitions=main-1602250217
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/zRqvzReehYIT6K5jHGeQr6vNH7o>
Subject: [netmod] Clarification needed for YANG 1.1 XPATH context
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:08:28 -0000
Hi, I'm looking for clarification on the meaning of the following paragraph in section 6.4.1 (XPATH context) in RFC6020bis: '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 tree.' It's unclear to me what this is trying to say, and why - for example, does this mean that I need to validate any 'must' and 'when' statements on the child container even when nothing within that child container is configured? Thanks, William
- [netmod] Clarification needed for YANG 1.1 XPATH … William Ivory
- Re: [netmod] Clarification needed for YANG 1.1 XP… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] Clarification needed for YANG 1.1 XP… William Ivory
- Re: [netmod] Clarification needed for YANG 1.1 XP… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] Clarification needed for YANG 1.1 XP… William Ivory
- Re: [netmod] Clarification needed for YANG 1.1 XP… Radek Krejčí
- Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Clarification needed … Ladislav Lhotka