Re: [netmod] Erratum 5514 on NMDA [RFC 8342]

[Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>]

Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> One small concern with the proposed NEW text is that it suggests that
> an NP-container is configuration, which I think is untrue.

An NP-container can represent config data, so I think that part of
Rob's suggested text is ok.

Here's Rob's proposed text:

    The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes, except
    non-presence containers, must be specified.

This doesn't say that a list within a top-level NP-container MUST have
"origin".

E.g.:

  container top {
    container second {
      list foo {
         ...
      }
    }
  }

Here /top/second/foo must have origin.


/martin


Thusly,
> maybe the following tweak is better?
> 
> s/except/which excludes/
> 
> NEWER:
>     The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes, which excludes
>     non-presence containers, must be specified.
> 
> Still, my preferred fix is captured at the end of the linked mail
> archive (i..e., fix the source definition for “data node” in RFC
> 7950....and reject this errata).
> 
> K.  // contributor 
> 
> 
> > On May 4, 2020, at 6:15 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> > <rwilton=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Are there any other comments on the proposed resolution of this
> > erratum?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: netmod <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund
> >> Sent: 28 April 2020 16:47
> >> To: rwilton=[e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [netmod] Erratum 5514 on NMDA [RFC 8342]
> >> 
> >> "Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <rwilton=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> There is one open erratum on NMDA from 2018 that I would like to
> >>> process.
> >>> 
> >>> The erratum is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5514
> >>> 
> >>> There has been quite a lot of discussion on this erratum previously on
> >>> the NETMOD alias.  The last email in the thread was
> >>> 
> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/LHJZmf5gtESX6Nobwst0OwXbGG4/
> >>> 
> >>>> From my reading of the discussion, I don't think that there is clear
> >>>> WG consensus between the two competing concerns:
> >>> (1) The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes must be
> >>> specified (section 7, YANG annotation definition).
> >>> (2) The origin applies to all configuration nodes except non-presence
> >>> containers (section 5.3.4).
> >>> 
> >>> Hence my proposal is to mark this as "Hold for Document Update" with
> >>> Kent's proposed resolution of changing the description in the YANG
> >>> model.
> >>> 
> >>> OLD:
> >>>    The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes must be
> >>>    specified.
> >>> 
> >>> NEW:
> >>>    The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes, except
> >>>    non-presence containers, must be specified.
> >>> 
> >>> For reference, this will mean that the extension [NEW] is defined as:
> >>> 
> >>>     md:annotation origin {
> >>>       type origin-ref;
> >>>       description
> >>>         "The 'origin' annotation can be present on any configuration
> >>>          data node in the operational state datastore.  It specifies
> >>>          from where the node originated.  If not specified for a given
> >>>          configuration data node, then the origin is the same as the
> >>>          origin of its parent node in the data tree.  The origin for
> >>>          any top-level configuration data nodes, except non-presence
> >>>          containers,  must be specified.";
> >>>     }
> >>> 
> >>> Please can you let me know if you support or object to this
> >>> resolution.  I'll leave it a week to see if there is consensus before
> >>> processing the erratum.
> >> 
> >> I think this is ok.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> /martin
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netmod mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod