Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> One small concern with the proposed NEW text is that it suggests that
> an NP-container is configuration, which I think is untrue.
An NP-container can represent config data, so I think that part of
Rob's suggested text is ok.
Here's Rob's proposed text:
The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes, except
non-presence containers, must be specified.
This doesn't say that a list within a top-level NP-container MUST have
"origin".
E.g.:
container top {
container second {
list foo {
...
}
}
}
Here /top/second/foo must have origin.
/martin
Thusly,
> maybe the following tweak is better?
>
> s/except/which excludes/
>
> NEWER:
> The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes, which excludes
> non-presence containers, must be specified.
>
> Still, my preferred fix is captured at the end of the linked mail
> archive (i..e., fix the source definition for “data node” in RFC
> 7950....and reject this errata).
>
> K. // contributor
>
>
> > On May 4, 2020, at 6:15 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
