> On 05 Sep 2016, at 12:38, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
I was considering both options, and lowercase is IMO more appropriate. Sec.
7.14 says:
The "rpc" statement defines an rpc node in the schema tree.
It is exactly the rpc node in the schema tree that's important here, not an RPC
operation as such. Perhaps the most precise formulation would be "… that is
also a data node, rpc node, action node or notification node", but this seems
too verbose.
Lada
>
>
> /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
>>
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
