Hi Jan, >> 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.
I apologize if I’ve done or said anything to offend you. Please, let’s keep the discussion on the level. Regarding raised eyebrows, did you catch that the value “1000” doesn’t fit into a uint8? The point was/is that validation might miss that error without template expansion. In this case, pyang/yanglint validation on (unexpanded) <running> would pass, but I don’t think that we would want to settle for that, right? Again, it was the intention of the authors that validation is moved to <intended>; Rob, Juergen, Martin, and I have all affirmed this understanding recently. I think that the quoted s5.1.3 line above escaped scrutiny, as well perhaps some text missing in Section 6.1 (to replace or extend “running” with “intended"). I recall that the authors were drawing a fine line bridging being compatible with RFC 7950 and this intention. I think that an Errata on RFC 8342 may be warranted here, but I’m unsure what it might say just yet. > 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? All my responses on this thread to this point, and in general, unless explicitly called out with an “as co-chair” designation, are from me as a contributor. I do try to put a “as a contributor” on my messages for brevity, but it is easy to forget sometimes. K.
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
