So we need to extend and clarify the terminology but this can't be done via an errata. Looking at the RFC 8342 terms, we may need to also define 'module schema', which is pretty much what the current 'schema tree' definition is (or we just keep that definition).
(I am not sure 'YANG schema' as proposed in the packages work is a good term, but then this is a draft and this can be improved.) I am also not sure that 'set of all modules implemented by a server' (proposed by Lada) is a good definition; in the NMDA world, a server implements several datastores and each datastore has a datastore schema and they can be different. Bottom line: I think the errata should be rejected and we should check that we have a proper issue on the YANG issue next tracker to address this terminology issue in the future. /js On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 03:15:49PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > I agree with Lada that having such a definition would be useful. > > But I also agree with Martin that this isn't really an erratum. > > It is also worth noting that RFC 8342 defines: > > o schema node: A node in the schema tree. The formal definition is > provided in RFC 7950. > > o datastore schema: The combined set of schema nodes for all modules > supported by a particular datastore, taking into consideration any > deviations and enabled features for that datastore. > > The latest version of the packages draft (not posted yet), defines: > > o YANG schema: A datastore schema, not bound to any particular > datastore. > > Thanks, > Rob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund > > Sent: 22 October 2019 16:02 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5879) > > > > Hi, > > > > The problem is that it is not clear that we can use this new definition > > with the rest of the text in the RFC that uses this term. > > For example, section 7.1.5 talks about "the imported module's schema > > tree", and this doesn't really work if the schema tree is not tied to a > > module. > > > > Also the proposed definition is recursive since it is defined in terms of > > "schema node", and a "schema node" is already defined as "a node in the > > schema tree". > > > > So it probably makes sense to look at this definition (and the text and > > other definitions) if we do a document update, but as it is currently > > written I think it should be rejected. > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > 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/eid5879 > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > Type: Technical > > > Reported by: Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> > > > > > > Section: 3 > > > > > > Original Text > > > ------------- > > > o schema tree: The definition hierarchy specified within a module. > > > > > > > > > Corrected Text > > > -------------- > > > o schema tree: The hierarchy of schema nodes defined in the set of all > > modules > > > implemented by a server, as specified in the YANG library data > > [RFC7895]. > > > > > > > > > > > > Notes > > > ----- > > > The original definition of the term has two problems: > > > > > > 1. Schema tree is not limited to a single module. Some YANG constructs, > > such as augment and leafref type, may refer to a schema node that is > > defined in another module. > > > > > > 2. Apart from schema nodes, YANG modules contain definitions that do not > > contribute to the schema tree: groupings, typedefs, identities etc. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
