On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 11:05 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 10:22:11AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> writes: > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:00:27PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > > 9.9 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.9>;. The leafref > > > > > > Built-In Type > > > > > > > > > > > > The leafref built-in type is restricted to the value space of > > > > > > some > > > > > > leaf or leaf-list node in the schema tree and optionally further > > > > > > restricted by corresponding instance nodes in the data tree. The > > > > > > "path" substatement (Section 9.9.2 > > > > > > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.9.2>;) is used to > > > > > > identify the referred > > > > > > leaf or leaf-list node in the schema tree. The value space of > > > > > > the > > > > > > referring node is the value space of the referred node. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it should be "data tree" in both occurrences. > > > > > > > > Time for an errata? > > > > > > Here is the old discussion thread: > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg15979.html > > > > > > Everything relevant had been extensively discussed in it, and I am > > > sceptical that we can come up with anything significantly better - it > > > will only be more (or different) hand-waving. The problem is inherent in > > > the leafref design introduced in YANG 1.1. It won't go away no matter > > > how much we paper over it. > > > > > > > So you think the use of 'schema tree' in the text quoted above (is > > used to identify the referred leaf or leaf-list node in the schema > > tree) is correct?? > > > > I do not want to discuss whether you like the design of leafrefs or > > not here - at this time we should focus on whether the text is correct > > or not given the design we have. So again, you think that 'schema > > tree' is correct in the statement? > > After reading the quoted thread and thinking some more, I think the > text in 9.9 is in fact correct. As Lada wrote in that thread: > > 2. It [path] also implicitly refers to a leaf node in the schema > [...] > > The problem is that this "implicit reference" isn't defined. 9.9 > talks about reference to a schema node, and 9.9.2 talks about the data > tree, but there is no text that ties these together.
Agreed. Lada > > > /martin > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
