Hi Peter, [Kul att se dig här!]
"Peter Lundell \(plundell\)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all. > > I'm working with an issue involving a deviate replace type and the problem is > where the type should be resolved. > > The scope in which the deviated property is resolved in is not explicitly > stated in RFC 7950 (7.20.3.2). This would have impact when replacing the type, > both when it's prefixed and when it's not. > It does seem logical, and also in line with the rest of the RFC, to evaluate > the > replaced property in deviating module scope and not target module scope. Section 5.1 says: Statements in the module or submodule can reference definitions in the external module using the prefix specified in the "import" statement. [...] When a definition in an external module is referenced, a locally defined prefix MUST be used, followed by a colon (":") and then the external identifier. References to definitions in the local module MAY use the prefix notation. This is a general rule, and it is not repeated in every place where it applies. So it applies to this case as well. /martin > Can deviating module scope be assumed? > Should the RFC be clarified and the scope explicitly stated? > > BR > /Peter Lundell > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
