Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)

"Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com> Fri, 03 April 2020 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A739B3A0971 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 06:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XzN5XDNkWWMG for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 06:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam12on2098.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.243.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 510933A0966 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 06:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=X5wKGd84gOjvdMR9nxuhEKnDOlmGw3DIk7KC++ad8PcG4T5zkTBr7rNhg7zLuuBhWV3tCR6tRwULd1dWQCFxfPNSWdpPPzoNzRF7hKFmjDbEXzAzTEM9cyNsl1Yafbbq2tbG3ylmQj/L28Z80ZZVFkrIWg6WITF+N8J3+pSwXvKtU/kCWehhQ1pQEcYgktuxq+trr+yEuhjk9jaNrM9Iezsx6GqkbmatVa6R1PalNAVYN/vhOs6tAA+LTBMak3ySzAho9DIBhUmSjoPZh+rG/H49XEMkpn4bJt+ojKyerytRk/9ZyH7Ju0iBvreGloZOKm4O2Aff5WCzeP+v7AU5Wg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=QdhaIl2hvpfbEkic5MpZCmJCg69B+VsvxFgDR0Rr35s=; b=fz45YXOjbFtdFfBWsG8E9oh1//JtexBtFRwUUL9r+iyDjIHpXsqZhwOlGaerIK7HLFR5HuSOUbmbWoM1C3YWkF749idJP72NS+d058naaAm5Owfh4AgzeehstL/hTdn3pNVqOiQYruz+joOqxSV/xsnA1a3TvSRoOIEGso4//Kxyaz3sO3HHDWMihDYyZ4UB0rQLaqgLZArrUQz26017JVrP3wWR30HJtpUmGoKA7WRxjR5dCNZPjKW49ZvMTtxZ6YA5uv74VVe7fl7zyn3619Z/ba1HI6uaqCPciRavW5SK0i+2IDBjKjK488edd3zmayCayoLh6nywy8rZ7ivEnQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nokia.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nokia.com; dkim=pass header.d=nokia.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=QdhaIl2hvpfbEkic5MpZCmJCg69B+VsvxFgDR0Rr35s=; b=TIFlPGEMq9iqvsvrtzjc/K+CQP5BIJeN59EmYwKKKT6HlZ6To5xPqYFw4bp/S04nmhwJjmzB3zYt7y2kiQw9WkrvJhkheMxh0VY6Aq+Y/TyHd/EmhMm2tWXaDAtZnHmvXCiQ2Efnsh5k3diydwXfuzkjnNBokpXFso+8VlqXEdw=
Received: from DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:ca::21) by DM5PR08MB2585.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:cf::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2878.15; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 13:31:50 +0000
Received: from DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c00d:56c3:675e:ec63]) by DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c00d:56c3:675e:ec63%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2878.016; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 13:31:50 +0000
From: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_Bj=F6rklund?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
CC: "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
Thread-Index: AQHWBCEZ+1dLitN/gE+4JTO6Fuc0uqhcjXeAgAAFCACAAAp/AIAKthqggAAbPjA=
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 13:31:50 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR08MB26333FAB53D3C4C781AB7B6B9BC70@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20200327101812.51904F40712@rfc-editor.org> <20200327151743.xwzncq4osj26tzec@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20200327.163544.1954043640939771631.id@4668.se> <20200327161318.ykrx2s36bhmaglxq@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <MN2PR11MB43666AB22069D14FC3FB9A66B5C70@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB43666AB22069D14FC3FB9A66B5C70@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jason.sterne@nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [65.110.221.64]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 20cabe01-9917-4327-5dd2-08d7d7d35da8
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR08MB2585:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR08MB25854B6CDC161C3BC1A51CC39BC70@DM5PR08MB2585.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 0362BF9FDB
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(376002)(366004)(136003)(39850400004)(346002)(396003)(8676002)(81166006)(66946007)(66476007)(76116006)(71200400001)(81156014)(8936002)(966005)(53546011)(6506007)(5660300002)(316002)(54906003)(64756008)(66556008)(33656002)(52536014)(7696005)(110136005)(66446008)(55016002)(478600001)(9686003)(2906002)(86362001)(4326008)(186003)(26005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nokia.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: bRCdlKQa+mAnmsYzvmC/D3L51EJmewnJQxE/2MBRo/1rKpL/kcYmrejRDglKeHE03s4uwtJCRojCXE09ymwaV185J+vPXDpjzOLBWoSlnPwA9RvUK+gf9mK5povWz46nIhpctYyTghUCtD7UBoTHgg==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 20cabe01-9917-4327-5dd2-08d7d7d35da8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Apr 2020 13:31:50.4201 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: wgAflOkRxZOSADBKzl0gwJKwePEJ/Im8Y/Slw9CUM8ndhVKaTiv6GiCADH/p2Fkt24GfTstMyZSBiDnsg7AoHg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR08MB2585
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/La09EB_xkCE9ylGveNeJP8V5U30>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 13:31:59 -0000

I don't think we should allow overwriting a require-instance true with a require-instance false in a derived type. It seems to go against the spirit of avoiding expansion of allowable values.

>From section 4.1 of RFC7950:

        Derived types can restrict their base type's set of valid values

And this text in section 7.3.4 implies that derived types only do further restriction:

    If the type's default value is not valid according to the new
   restrictions specified in a derived type or leaf definition, the
   derived type or leaf definition MUST specify a new default value
   compatible with the restrictions.

Going the other direction (overwriting with require-instance true) seems OK to me.

Jason


> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 8:06 AM
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>de>; Martin
> Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
> Cc: warren@kumari.net; netmod@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Juergen
> Schoenwaelder
> > Sent: 27 March 2020 16:13
> > To: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
> > Cc: ibagdona@gmail.com; warren@kumari.net; netmod@ietf.org; rfc-
> > editor@rfc-editor.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:35:44PM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote:
> > > [re-sent w/ correct address]
> > >
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > two comments:
> > > >
> > > > - It is unclear to me whether this really qualifies as an errata.
> > > >
> > > > - If we add this, then there should probably text about which
> > > >   combinations are allowed. For example, for pattern and ranges, there
> > > >   is explicit text that says further restrictions of the value space
> > > >   are possible, bot not expansions. If we follow that logic, then
> > > >
> > > >   typedef a {
> > > >     type leaf-ref {
> > > >       path "/some/thing";
> > > >       require-instance true;
> > > >     }
> > > >   }
> > > >
> > > >   typedef b {
> > > >     type a {
> > > >       require-instance false;
> > > >     }
> > > >   }
> > > >
> > > >   might be illegal since b has a larger value space than a.
> > >
> > > The value space of b is the same as for a. "require-instance" doesn't
> > > change the value space; it changes semantic validation of the given
> > > values ((see my mail from 17 Mar, "Require-instance problem").
> > >
> > > /martin
> >
> > OK. If we consider require-instance a constraint and not a restriction,
> > then the motivation for this errata is at least
> > confusing:
> >
> >   Since no one argued against this understanding, this errata changes
> >   the text to the same form as in other restrictions applicable to
> >   derived types.
> >
> > Simply put: Do you think it is OK to overwrite a require-instance true
> > with a require-instance false in a derived type?
> [RW]
> I'm not sure, but going in the other direction seems plausible.
> 
> E.g. you start with a typedef that is explicitly require-instance false that is then
> refined by a typedef to be require-instance true.
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> 
> >
> > /js
> >
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod