Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8341 (6493)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I agree with Juergen that section 9.13.2 of RFC 7950 applies and hence my opinion is that this errata, against RFC 8341, should be rejected.

However, I also think that RFC 7950 isn't as clear as it should be.  Given that there is an explicit ABNF construct for instance-identifier, I really think that this ABNF should explicitly require prefixes for node-identifiers, avoiding any potential ambiguity in what is allowed.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 24 March 2021 15:56
> To: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Rob Wilton
> (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8341 (6493)
> 
> Section 9.13.2. is pretty clear:
> 
>    An instance-identifier value is lexically represented as a string.
>    All node names in an instance-identifier value MUST be qualified with
>    explicit namespace prefixes, and these prefixes MUST be declared in
>    the XML namespace scope in the instance-identifier's XML element.
> 
> The errata should be rejected.
> 
> /js
> 
> PS: Section 14 is a collection of syntax rules but not every aspect of
>     a language needs to be expressed in the syntax rules. Yes, it is
>     possible to express the first Section 9.13.2 MUST by making the
>     syntax rules a bit more complex (not reusing node-identifier) but
>     even as it is now, the MUST in Section 9.13.2 applies.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 08:19:54AM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8341,
> > "Network Configuration Access Control Model".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6493
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Balazs Lengyel <[e-mail]>
> >
> > Section: 3.5.2
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > All the same rules as an instance-identifier apply,
> > except that predicates for keys are optional.  If a key
> > predicate is missing, then the node-instance-identifier
> > represents all possible server instances for that key.
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > All the same rules as an instance-identifier apply,
> > except that predicates for keys are optional.  If a key
> > predicate is missing, then the node-instance-identifier
> > represents all possible server instances for that key.
> >
> > Specifying prefixes for the node names is OPTIONAL. If a prefix is not
> specified the node-instance-identifier represents all possible server
> instances.
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > For the typedef node-instance-identifier (and the leaf path) it is not
> clear whether the value should or should not include prefixes?
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.13.2 states
> > "All node names in an instance-identifier value MUST be qualified with
> >    explicit namespace prefixes"
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-14 - instance-identifier
> rule
> > indicates the prefixes are optional.
> >
> > Whichever is the correct answer it should be explicitly stated.
> > If prefixes are optional and we have 2 leaves with the same path except
> the namespace/prefix I assume both are referenced (effected) by the nacm
> rule. Correct?
> >
> > Actually this is a bit misleading also in RFC7950.
> >
> > Instructions:
> > -------------
> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC8341 (draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-09)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : Network Configuration Access Control Model
> > Publication Date    : March 2018
> > Author(s)           : A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund
> > Category            : INTERNET STANDARD
> > Source              : Network Configuration
> > Area                : Operations and Management
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>