Re: [YANG] new pyang errors

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> Wed, 23 January 2008 05:39 UTC

Return-path: <yang-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHYKS-0004Wt-Js; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:39:16 -0500
Received: from yang by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JHYKR-0004WY-DI for yang-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:39:15 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHYKR-0004WQ-3c for yang@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:39:15 -0500
Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.175]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHYKO-0002ym-Qu for yang@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:39:15 -0500
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:36:12 PST
Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:38:32 -0800
Received: from idle.juniper.net (idleski.juniper.net [172.25.4.26]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id m0N5cV901387; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:38:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phil@idle.juniper.net)
Received: from idle.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idle.juniper.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0N5cTT8019908; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:38:29 GMT (envelope-from phil@idle.juniper.net)
Message-Id: <200801230538.m0N5cTT8019908@idle.juniper.net>
To: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
Subject: Re: [YANG] new pyang errors
In-reply-to: <47938C97.6060203@andybierman.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:38:29 -0500
From: Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2008 05:38:32.0675 (UTC) FILETIME=[30D97B30:01C85D82]
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: yang@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: yang@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: YANG modeling Language for NETCONF <yang.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang>, <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/yang>
List-Post: <mailto:yang@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang>, <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: yang-bounces@ietf.org

Andy Bierman writes:
>IMO, it is important to be able to easily distinguish between
>some knob that the agent is not using at all (whatever that
>means is DM-specific) vs. a knob that is being used, but which
>has the DM-defined default value.

Why is this the important distinction?  "used" by who?

IMHO the important distinction is the one between the application
and the device that tell the application what statements the device
requires and what it takes to create a valid config.  If the config
statement is mandatory, the application must provide it for the
config to be valid.  The application knows that it must get that
value, assumably beating it out of the user, and create the mandatory
config before committing the configuration.

Thanks,
 Phil


_______________________________________________
YANG mailing list
YANG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang