Re: [yang-doctors] question regarding conditional/optional statements

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> > I believe a feature for every counter is a misuse of YANG feature
> > statements, it will get horribly ugly. I recently observe an increase
> > of feature statement usage in order to accomodate server
> > implementations and the ultimate solution is a feature statement for
> > every leaf, list, rpc, action, notification and perhaps even certain
> > value sets. This is ridiculous, but a feature for every counter is
> > getting damn close to it.
>
> This is a programmatic API.  I appreciate the concern for a bloat of
> bits on the wire, but recall that features are listed in yang-library,
> a very special module that has a built-in ETag-like hashing mechanism
> to allow for efficient comparisons.  I don't see the bloat issue here.
>
> Having feature statements everywhere may be ridiculous, but not illegal.
> Implementations need to be able to handle it already, right?
>
>
good points.
They all apply equally to deviations and features.

I think the way you used features in the client-server set of modules is a
good example
for solving this sort of problem.  The if-feature-stmts are on containers,
not
individual leafs.

I don't think special objects that return which other objects are
implemented
is good because it is not a generalized solution.  A better approach would
be
to enhance the protocols so "not-implemented" and "temp-unavailable"
exceptions
can be returned on request (ala with-defaults)

> Kent
>
>

Andy

> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list
> yang-doctors@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
>