Re: [YANG] keyref

Phil Shafer wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
>> IMO, leafref as a documentation clause does the same thing
>> but way simpler.  The DM reader should not have to be an expert
>> in Xpath, and need to hunt down the relevant documentation,
>> just to find out a leaf's data type.
> 
> Are you saying you prefer this relationship to be defined in English
> words instead of a formal language?  The "description" statement
> for the leaf can provide the words, but we hope to provide something
> that a generic manager implementation can use to process module
> contents.
> 

I already made a proposal -- instead of a builtin type called keyref
there would be an optional clause for a leaf of leaf-list called
leafref that has the path-stmt from the keyref as its argument.

As a separate matter, it is also good practice to document
the leafref in the description clause.

>> IMO, the whole issue of relationships between config database nodes is larger
>> than this keyref clause.  The requirements for machine readable
>> object constraint languages and object/entity relationships needs to
>> be documented in detail and agreed upon.
> 
> So you want this issue pushed onto the Requirements Team?  Or do
> you want a distinct requirements effort for this?
> 

I expect the requirements team to write the initial draft.
I don't know what the RFC will look like yet.

> Thanks,
>  Phil
> 
> 

Andy

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