The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7950, "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language"
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid8784/ -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Maria Matejka <[email protected]> Date Reported: Feb. 25, 2026, 8 p.m. Rejected by: Mahesh Jethanandani (IESG) Section 9.12.4 says: Original Text ------------- If the second member type in the union had been of type "string" instead of an enumeration, the current value would have matched, and the resulting configuration would have been valid. Corrected Text -------------- If the second member type in the union had been of type "string" instead of an enumeration, the current value would have matched, and the resulting configuration would have been valid. However, the leaf's value must then be reinterpreted if a matching instance is added later. Notes ----- >From the example wording, it looks like that the event-to-be-watched is only >target instance removal for a successfully resolved leafref. Yet from the >specification, one can infer that one indeed needs to watch also for creation >of a target instance for unsuccessfully resolved possible leafref, and >therefore the example is misleading. Verifier's Note: The concern expressed as part of this Errata does not survive scrutiny of YANG's validation model. Per RFC 7950, validation is holistic: it is triggered by any change to the intended configuration and evaluates the entire datastore without reference to its prior state. Consequently, when a leafref target is created, the same validation pass that validates the new instance also re-evaluates all outstanding leafref constraints, including those nested within union types. No implementation-level asymmetry exists; no special monitoring of target-creation events is required beyond normal change-triggered validation. The existing text in Section 9.12.4 correctly describes the behavior illustrated by its specific example. It does not purport to enumerate all events that trigger re-evaluation — that is a function of the general validation model defined elsewhere in the RFC. Additionally, the sentence at issue sits within a paragraph addressing schema-node concerns while itself speaking to data-node behavior. This is a presentation issue in an example section, not a normative deficiency. If the example text causes implementor confusion, that is appropriate material for a future revision (e.g., yang-next) rather than an erratum to the current specification. -------------------------------------- RFC7950 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis) -------------------------------------- Title : The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language Publication Date : August 2016 Author(s) : M. Bjorklund, Ed. Category : Proposed Standard Source : netmod (ops) Stream : IETF _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
