Are there any other comments on the proposed resolution of this erratum?

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund
> Sent: 28 April 2020 16:47
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Erratum 5514 on NMDA [RFC 8342]
> 
> "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

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to