Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > [ - RFC Ed (for clutter), + Benoit (who verified > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4794) ] > > I'm trying to go through and clean up the outstanding Ops and > Management Errata. I'm completely, 100% not a YANG / netmod person (I > cannot even spell YANG!), but I *think* that this Errata should be > verified, yes? This isn't changing what was decided when the WG > published this, it is simply correcting / clarifying the text.
Yes I agree it should be verified. /martin > > The Errata criteria are here: > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/ > > One of the big ones is that we only use Errata to fix actual errors, > not change anything that was WG consensus at the time: > "Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that might > be different from the intended consensus when the document was > approved should be either Hold for Document Update or Rejected. > Deciding between these two depends on judgment. Changes that are > clearly modifications to the intended consensus, or involve large > textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear situations, small > changes can be Hold for Document Update." > > Again, I'm not a NetMod person, so looking for clear advice here... > > W > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:26 AM 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: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5807 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Technical > > Reported by: Jernej Tuljak <[email protected]> > > > > Section: 7.21.5. > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > o If the "when" statement is a child of a "uses", "choice", or > > "case" statement, then the context node is the closest ancestor > > node to the node with the "when" statement 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 "uses", "choice", or "case" statement. > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > o If the "when" statement is a child of a "uses", "choice", or > > "case" statement, then the context node is the closest ancestor > > node to the node with the "when" statement 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 "uses", > > "choice", or "case" statement. > > > > Notes > > ----- > > Similar to verified errata 4794 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4794) > > but covers the "uses", "choice" and "case" corner case (instead of > > "augment"). If the node for which the "when" statement is defined is within > > an rpc, action or notification, the context node also needs to be inside > > that rpc, action or notification. There are published IETF modules, which > > rely on this to be true, such as "ietf-netconf-nmda@2019-01-07" in RFC8526 > > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8526) at schema node id > > "/ncds:get-data/ncds:input/ncds:origin-filters". Original text assigns the > > context node to the root node, if no data node ancestor is found. "rpc", > > "action" and "notification" are not data nodes and are represented by nodes > > that are descendants of the root node, as described in Section 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 > > 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 : Network Modeling > > Area : Operations and Management > > Stream : IETF > > Verifying Party : IESG > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
