When differentiating between IETF, OpenConfig, and Cisco native YANG models, how does the use of containers differ?

IETF and Cisco native YANG models differentiate between configuration and operational data by utilizing mechanisms such as the `config` attribute (true for config, false for operational) on individual data nodes, or by defining them within different modules or logical groupings, effectively creating separate conceptual 'containers'. This contrasts with OpenConfig's specific pattern of consistently using explicit `config` and `state` sibling containers under a common parent node for a given feature.

While OpenConfig models are indeed characterized by their strict use of `config` and `state` containers, where `state` often mirrors `config` and includes operational data, this statement alone doesn't explain how it *differs* from IETF and Cisco native models, which also separate data types but through different structural approaches.

This statement is incomplete, but generally, Cisco native models, similar to IETF, tend to use `config` attributes or separate data nodes rather than the explicit `config` and `state` sibling container structure of OpenConfig.

IETF and Cisco native models generally differentiate between configuration and operational data, employing attributes or distinct data definitions, rather than combining them into a single, undifferentiated container.