The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7950, "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language".
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5663 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Ebben Aries <[email protected]> Date Reported: 2019-03-18 Rejected by: Joel (IESG) Section: 14 Original Text ------------- deviate-delete-stmt = deviate-keyword sep delete-keyword-str optsep (";" / "{" stmtsep ;; these stmts can appear in any order [units-stmt] *must-stmt *unique-stmt *default-stmt "}") stmtsep Corrected Text -------------- deviate-delete-stmt = deviate-keyword sep delete-keyword-str optsep (";" / "{" stmtsep ;; these stmts can appear in any order [units-stmt] *must-stmt *unique-stmt *default-stmt [config-stmt] [mandatory-stmt] [min-elements-stmt] [max-elements-stmt] "}") stmtsep Notes ----- Section 7.20.3.2 specifies all permitted substatements for the "deviate" statement however the ABNF grammar specifies different valid substatements per deviate argument. The "delete" argument is one such that only contains a subset of what is defined in the substatement table in this section. The errata mentioned at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5489 is meant to correct the following statement """ The argument "delete" deletes properties from the target node. The properties to delete are identified by substatements to the "delete" statement. """ However this either needs to be a per argument table or ABNF correction --VERIFIER NOTES-- Martin Bjorklund wrote: I agree that the document needs clarification, and the yang-next issue will take care of that. The document needs a clarification that the refers to the grammar, or perhaps different substatement tables for add/replace/delete. Meanwhile, I think that this errata should be rejected. rob wilton and robert varga wrote: Hi Ebben, I've always taken the ABNF to list the definitive sub-statements that are allowed for the various deviate "add", "replace", or "delete" options. Perhaps the RFC could state this more explicitly. Perhaps raise an issue on the YANG Next issue tracker to clarify this (https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues) and it might get discussed tomorrow. I agree. Proposed statements are simple cases, for which 'deviate replace' can be used to specify the correct value -- for example remove 'min-elements' by replacing it with 'min-elements 0'. -------------------------------------- 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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
