Re: [YANG] new pyang errors

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz> Fri, 25 January 2008 10:23 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 1JILiz-0007Al-2s; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:23:53 -0500
Received: from yang by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JILiy-0007Ag-BU for yang-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:23:52 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JILiy-0007AY-1B for yang@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:23:52 -0500
Received: from office2.cesnet.cz ([195.113.144.244]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JILix-0000yI-KQ for yang@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:23:51 -0500
Received: from [172.29.2.201] (asus-gx.lhotka.cesnet.cz [195.113.161.161]) by office2.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2550CD800C5 for <yang@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:23:51 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [YANG] new pyang errors
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz>
To: yang@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20080125100744.GB17475@elstar.local>
References: <200801250311.m0P3Bhbo036061@idle.juniper.net> <1201255325.24635.70.camel@missotis> <20080125100744.GB17475@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Organization: CESNET
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:23:50 +0100
Message-Id: <1201256631.24635.84.camel@missotis>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
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

Juergen Schoenwaelder píše v Pá 25. 01. 2008 v 11:07 +0100:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 11:02:05AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>  
> > I guess I differ from Andy here: in my view the agent will fill here a
> > value that satisfies the DM, even though it is not a default specified
> > in the DM (i.e, it is vendor's internal default). For example, if IP
> > address is mandatory on an interface but no default is defined in the
> > DM, the device could set it to 0.0.0.0. From the viewpoint of validating
> > the configuration (my item 2), it is valid - the mandatory element
> > exists and its value (presumably) conforms to inet:ip-address. True, the
> > interface is not fully operational, but this has nothing to do with
> > validity of the configuration wrt the DM.
> 
> I guess part of the problem we have in this discussion is that we do
> not properly distinguish between configuration data and operational
> state data. While a device may choose to assign automatically an
> operational state of 0.0.0.0 for an unconfigured IPv4 address, this
> particular address may still not be configuration state.

Would it be a problem if it were a factory default configuration state
as well?

Lada

> 
> /js
> 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C



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