Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 (3362)
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Tue, 25 September 2012 10:22 UTC
Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 9909221F86D6 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SARKkihblsNJ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E3121F86D1 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDE2540699 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:22:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (trail.lhotka.name [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZr7MajcJFWy for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:22:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (fw.nic.cz [217.31.207.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B63C540049 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:22:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: netmod@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20120921154850.6A92C72E038@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20120921154850.6A92C72E038@rfc-editor.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+77~g39beeb2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.50.1 (i386-apple-darwin9.8.0)
Mail-Followup-To: netmod@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:22:30 +0200
Message-ID: <m2vcf2h061.fsf@ladislav.lhotka.nb1.wifi0.office.nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 (3362)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:22:49 -0000
Hi, this bug is now fixed in pyang. I only used a different name ("tag") for the attribute of the <nma:unique> element, in order to follow the YIN convention. So the annotation looks e.g. like this: <nma:unique tag="t:a/t:b t:c"/> Please try it out. Thanks, Lada RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> writes: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6110, > "Mapping YANG to Document Schema Definition Languages and Validating NETCONF Content". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6110&eid=3362 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.com> > > Section: 10.55. > > Original Text > ------------- > The 'unique' Statement > > This statement is mapped to the @nma:unique attribute. ARGUMENT MUST > be translated so that every node identifier in each of its components > is prefixed with the namespace prefix of the local module, unless the > prefix is already present. The result of this translation then > becomes the value of the @nma:unique attribute. > > For example, assuming that the local module prefix is "ex", > > unique "foo ex:bar/baz" > > is mapped to the following attribute/value pair: > > nma:unique="ex:foo ex:bar/ex:baz" > > Corrected Text > -------------- > The 'unique' Statement > > This statement is mapped to the <nma:unique> element. It has one > mandatory attribute @key (with no namespace). ARGUMENT MUST > be translated so that every node identifier in each of its components > is prefixed with the namespace prefix of the local module, unless the > prefix is already present. The result of this translation then > becomes the value of the @key attribute. > > For example, assuming that the local module prefix is "ex", > > unique "foo ex:bar/baz" > > is mapped to the following element: > > <nma:unique key="ex:foo ex:bar/ex:baz" /> > > Notes > ----- > A list's unique-stmt has a cardinality of 0..1. Therefore it cannot be mapped into a single @nma:unique attribute. It should be mapped into an element instead, much like the must-stmt. Additional changes may be required throughout the document. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata 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 (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6110 (draft-ietf-netmod-dsdl-map-10) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Mapping YANG to Document Schema Definition Languages and Validating NETCONF Content > Publication Date : February 2011 > Author(s) : L. Lhotka, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : NETCONF Data Modeling Language > Area : Operations and Management > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
- [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 (336… RFC Errata System
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Jernej Tuljak
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Jernej Tuljak
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Jernej Tuljak
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Jernej Tuljak
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Jernej Tuljak
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Jernej Tuljak
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … t.petch
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … t.petch
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6110 … Benoit Claise
- [netmod] Last Call on the updated errata 3362 (wa… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] Last Call on the updated errata 3362 Jernej Tuljak
- Re: [netmod] Last Call on the updated errata 3362 Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] Last Call on the updated errata 3362 Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] Last Call on the updated errata 3362 Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] Last Call on the updated errata 3362 Benoit Claise