Hi,
two comments:
- It is unclear to me whether this really qualifies as an errata.
- If we add this, then there should probably text about which
combinations are allowed. For example, for pattern and ranges, there
is explicit text that says further restrictions of the value space
are possible, bot not expansions. If we follow that logic, then
typedef a {
type leaf-ref {
path "/some/thing";
require-instance true;
}
}
typedef b {
type a {
require-instance false;
}
}
might be illegal since b has a larger value space than a.
/js
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:18:12AM -0700, RFC Errata System 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/eid6031
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Radek Krejci <[email protected]>
>
> Section: 9.9.3
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> The "require-instance" statement, which is a substatement to the
> "type" statement, MAY be present if the type is "instance-identifier"
> or "leafref". It takes as an argument the string "true" or "false".
> If this statement is not present, it defaults to "true".
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The "require-instance" statement, which is a substatement to the
> "type" statement, MAY be present if the type is "instance-identifier",
> "leafref" or a type derived from them. It takes as an argument the
> string "true" or "false". If this statement is not present, it defaults
> to "true".
>
> Notes
> -----
> As discussed in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/?gbt=1&index=p_zRKwQ6TBxTuCDPc5wJbdZgWTc,
> authors expect that the require-instance statement is available not only for
> leafref and instance-identifier types, but also for all the types derived
> from them using typedef statement. Since no one argued against this
> understanding, this errata changes the text to the same form as in other
> restrictions applicable to derived types.
>
> 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
--
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
