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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

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/>