Hi, I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC 7950. I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a standards track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative text, especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior.
Andy On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:19:42PM +0100, t.petch wrote: > > This I-D updates RFC7950, since it changes the XPath context that YANG > > uses, yet there is no mention of 'Updates' > > I think the editors of the document reached the conclusion that the > xpath context rules stated in section 5.1. are the only meaningful > interpretation which is consistent with what RFC 7950 says. > > The question is whether the text 'changes' the xpath context, or > 'refines' the xpath context, or 'clarifies' the xpath context. On a > synchronous system (where intended config and applied config never > differ), there is no change at all. > > That said, I have no strong opinion about the question whether section > 5.1 requires an 'Updates: RFC 7950' or not. I do not think section 5.1 > is relevant for a system that uses RFC 7950 without implementing NMDA > and hence the value of having a forward pointer from RFC 7950 to NMDA > is likely not critical to have. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
