Kent, all, > Of course, some will point to Section 5.1.3: > > However, <running> MUST always be a valid configuration data tree, > as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC7950] > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7950#section-8.1>. > > But it has to be obvious that this is a bug. For instance, > > - YANG defines a leaf is of type union { uint8 | variable } > - <running> defines the leaf having value “MAX_FOOBAR” > with a template that defines MAX_FOOBAR=1000. > - so, <running> would be syntactically valid but > semantically invalid.
I must confess I raised my eyebrows a little when I saw this. Well, I have often heard server implementors pick some of their least favorite sentences out of an RFC and say that "this is obviously a bug". Still, it's quite another thing when something like that is coming from someone so deeply knowledgeable and immersed in IETF and the WG as Kent. Kent, may I ask that you clarify if you do mean what you said, and if you do, if that would be a statement from a contributor or chair? In my opinion, if the statement above in section 5.1.3 (and you will find similar language in 7950) collides with the template example you gave, may I suggest the possibility that there could be something wrong with that example rather than the RFCs? /jan
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
