"Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > There is one open erratum on NMDA from 2018 that I would like to > process. > > The erratum is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5514 > > There has been quite a lot of discussion on this erratum previously on > the NETMOD alias. The last email in the thread was > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/LHJZmf5gtESX6Nobwst0OwXbGG4/ > > >From my reading of the discussion, I don't think that there is clear > >WG consensus between the two competing concerns: > (1) The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes must be > specified (section 7, YANG annotation definition). > (2) The origin applies to all configuration nodes except non-presence > containers (section 5.3.4). > > Hence my proposal is to mark this as "Hold for Document Update" with > Kent's proposed resolution of changing the description in the YANG > model. > > OLD: > The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes must be > specified. > > NEW: > The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes, except > non-presence containers, must be specified. > > For reference, this will mean that the extension [NEW] is defined as: > > md:annotation origin { > type origin-ref; > description > "The 'origin' annotation can be present on any configuration > data node in the operational state datastore. It specifies > from where the node originated. If not specified for a given > configuration data node, then the origin is the same as the > origin of its parent node in the data tree. The origin for > any top-level configuration data nodes, except non-presence > containers, must be specified."; > } > > Please can you let me know if you support or object to this > resolution. I'll leave it a week to see if there is consensus before > processing the erratum.
I think this is ok. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
