Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:00:33AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Balazs Lengyel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > IMHO the case, when 2 deviation statements point at the same target 
> > > should be
> > > clarified and declared as an error or implementation dependent feature. I 
> > > see no
> > > good way of deciding which deviation statement has precedence.
> > 
> > This was discussed back in 2009: 
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IYW1t0PX34cf2GEGAlM98XFOfKw
> > 
> > 
> > This thread ends w/o clear resolution, but I think that the proposal
> > in the last email in this thread (please read the thread) would be a
> > useful addition:
> > 
> >   After applying all deviations, in any order, the resulting data
> >   model MUST still be valid.  For example, it is an error to add a
> >   default value that doesn't match the type in a deviation.
> >
> 
> Speaking as technical contributor:
> 
>   The second sentence is not really adding value. In the first
>   sentence, it may be not entirely clear what _all_ deviations
>   means. I assume this is 'all deviations announced by a server.
>   So perhaps the proposal is to add
> 
>     After applying all deviations announced by a server, in any order,
>     the resulting data model MUST still be valid.
> 
>   just before the beginning of section 7.20.3.1?

Ok.

> Speaking as co-chair and document shepherd:
> 
>   Procedurally, this comes _very_ late and I do not want to go into a
>   loop where there is always one more thing to fix but then each fix
>   requires several days of additional delay to determine consensus.
>   So I rather have the next I-D without this change posted so that we
>   can get YANG 1.1 into the hands of Benoit. If we in parallel do find
>   consensus on this particular clarification, someone can submit e.g.
>   an IETF last call comment to fold this in. I am sure we will get
>   more comments and change requests from Benoit, the IESG, the various
>   directorates etc. and I rather have this process started ASAP.

Ok.  I have posted -11 w/ the agreed upon changes (not the deviation
thing above).


/martin

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to