RFC Errata System <[email protected]> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950, > "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7950&eid=4794 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> > > Section: 7.21.5 > > Original Text > ------------- > o If the "when" statement is a child of an "augment" statement, then > the context node is the augment's target node in the data tree, if > the target node is a data node. Otherwise, the context node is > the closest ancestor node to the target node that is also a data > node. If no such node exists, the context node is the root node. > The accessible tree is tentatively altered during the processing > of the XPath expression by removing all instances (if any) of the > nodes added by the "augment" statement. > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > o If the "when" statement is a child of an "augment" statement, then > the context node is the augment's target node in the data tree, if > the target node is a data node, rpc, action or notification. > Otherwise, the context node is the closest ancestor node to the > target node that is also a data node, rpc, action or notification. > If no such node exists, the context node is the root node. The > accessible tree is tentatively altered during the processing of > the XPath expression by removing all instances (if any) of the > nodes added by the "augment" statement.
This errata should be accepted, with the only change of replacing "rpc" with "RPC" in the suggested text. /martin > > > Notes > ----- > If the target node of an "augment" is inside an rpc, action or > notification, the context node also needs to be inside that rpc, > action or notification. For example, if the target node is the "input" > node of an action, the context node should be the action node, not the > data node for which the action is defined as the original text > implies. This is also in accordance with the definition of the > accessible tree in Sec. 6.4.1. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7950 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14) > -------------------------------------- > Title : The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language > Publication Date : August 2016 > Author(s) : M. Bjorklund, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : NETCONF Data Modeling Language > Area : Operations and Management > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
