Re: [netmod] Augment issue

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Tue, 01 March 2016 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 A99801B36D4 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 01:42:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] 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 L_PDsc53sH0w for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 01:42:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0938D1B36D2 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 01:42:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:255:b41e:902c:38d7:b6ca] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:255:b41e:902c:38d7:b6ca]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED67E18180E; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:42:29 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1456825350; bh=+cn77q5ozjwyICx9Vy7OqgTf94K4m1uRfm5nIFF+fxU=; h=From:Date:To; b=buKlJyk1Mgz6pnKeXwPENVkXcrxo1wt1MrH5lBKwfE0SuRMbc8CgnX5fjVfOqm5AW J2S430hkAIwBqwGBZSpjZtSKpePtzviHwFti+IQ/eNbsHKlFTZ3bqjk/ANylXmxvoX hRTPh46ekmKAsv7jXOOk65DZLuJLs/72mKUXy2Nk=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <1456825129206.33792@pantheon.tech>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:42:30 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <46058C3A-C2F6-4012-9A21-BD8A475BB601@nic.cz>
References: <56D40ABD.40507@alcatel-lucent.com> <3101CBD7-6B1A-4FA1-B238-65B05AA6C63D@nic.cz> <1456825129206.33792@pantheon.tech>
To: Anton Tkáčik <anton.tkacik@pantheon.tech>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/E0-ceXi-Db7ikJCUQhI2aGwkfDg>
Cc: Peter Verthez <peter.verthez@nokia.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Augment issue
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: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 09:42:35 -0000

> On 01 Mar 2016, at 10:38, Anton Tkáčik <anton.tkacik@pantheon.tech> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> Noticed other issue with example set,
> In https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/issues/194 Lada stated that in YANG 1.0 submodule can not augment nodes
> defined in parent model.
> 
> Is that correct that submodule can not augment definition defined in parent module?

This isn't possible in YANG 1.0 but will be possible in 1.1. However, in the present case the definition being augmented from the submodule is arguably in a different module.

Lada

> Is such definition also augmentation.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> Od: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
> Odoslané: 29. februára 2016 17:36
> Komu: Peter Verthez
> Kópia: netmod@ietf.org
> Predmet: Re: [netmod] Augment issue
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I agree it should be OK. I tried to reproduce the situation and test it with pyang and it led to a Python exception. So I filed an issue:
> 
> https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/issues/206
> 
> Lada
> 
>> On 29 Feb 2016, at 10:09, Peter Verthez <peter.verthez@nokia.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> A few weeks ago I reported a bug on the OpenDaylight YANG parser, regarding a error that was generated on a particular augment construction.   The bug report is the following:
>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5335
>> 
>> We are disagreeing on the interpretation of the YANG RFC regarding to this bug, so could we get the opinion of the people on this mailing list on it?
>> 
>> The problem originated from a proposed Broadband Forum model, but there's a dummy model that reproduces the problem attached to that bug report.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Peter.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> AntonTkáčik
> Chief Software Architect
> 
> Mlynské Nivy 56 / 821 05 Bratislava / Slovakia
> +421 911 309 249 / anton.tkacik@pantheon.tech
> reception: +421 2 206 65 111 / www.pantheon.sk
> [logo]

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C