Hi Kent,
>>> 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.
I'm not offended in any way. It was certainly my intention keep things
perfectly level and impersonal. If that's not how it came through, I'm truly
sorry.
> Regarding raised eyebrows, did you catch that the value “1000” doesn’t fit
> into a uint8?
Of course. My raised eyebrow was regarding how you, being both deeply
knowledgeable and chair, could dismiss clear statements in RFCs as "obvious
that this is a bug." The RFCs are documents that we have agreed. Agreeing is
not an easy process, so we should be proud over what we have. While RFCs may
have bugs, holes and shortcomings, I think treating RFCs with some respect is
in order. We don't want to undermine their authority, or make people believe
they can ignore a few rules that are unpleasant to them ("obviously a bug") and
still call themselves compliant.
> 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.
I agree that your example is at odds with a whole collection of RFCs. But
instead of thinking all the RFCs are in error, my conclusion is that the
example you give is not supported yet. We can work on making templates usable
within the YANG framework, but just as you already recognized above, it doesn't
fit in without further work.
>> 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.
Thanks Kent. I do appreciate all you do for the WG.
/jan
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
