[netmod] [Errata Rejected] RFC7950 (5663)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 07 October 2019 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5245D12083E; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sLOdQ8YBnuP0; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A2C1120813; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9B33BB81504; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: exa@arrcus.com, mbj@tail-f.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: joelja@bogus.com, iesg@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20191007162756.9B33BB81504@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/CNIaod3TsJhfyUefSTaZ7ofwAdA>
Subject: [netmod] [Errata Rejected] RFC7950 (5663)
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: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 16:28:06 -0000

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7950,
"The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language".

You may review the report below and at:

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Ebben Aries <exa@arrcus.com>
Date Reported: 2019-03-18
Rejected by: Joel (IESG)

Section: 14

Original Text
deviate-delete-stmt = deviate-keyword sep delete-keyword-str optsep
                      (";" /
                       "{" stmtsep
                           ;; these stmts can appear in any order
                       "}") stmtsep

Corrected Text
deviate-delete-stmt = deviate-keyword sep delete-keyword-str optsep
                      (";" /
                       "{" stmtsep
                           ;; these stmts can appear in any order
                       "}") stmtsep

Section specifies all permitted substatements for the "deviate" statement however the ABNF grammar specifies different valid substatements per deviate argument.  The "delete" argument is one such that only contains a subset of what is defined in the substatement table in this section.

The errata mentioned at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5489 is meant to correct the following statement

The argument "delete" deletes properties from the target node.  The
properties to delete are identified by substatements to the "delete"

However this either needs to be a per argument table or ABNF correction
   Martin Bjorklund wrote:

I agree that the document needs clarification, and the yang-next issue
will take care of that.  The document needs a clarification that the
refers to the grammar, or perhaps different substatement tables for

Meanwhile, I think that this errata should be rejected.

rob wilton and robert varga wrote:

Hi Ebben,

I've always taken the ABNF to list the definitive sub-statements that are allowed for the various deviate "add", "replace", or "delete" options.  Perhaps the RFC could state this more explicitly.  Perhaps raise an issue on the YANG Next issue tracker to clarify this (https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues) and it might get discussed tomorrow.

I agree.

Proposed statements are simple cases, for which 'deviate replace' can be
used to specify the correct value -- for example remove 'min-elements'
by replacing it with 'min-elements 0'.

RFC7950 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14)
Title               : The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language
Publication Date    : August 2016
Author(s)           : M. Bjorklund, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Network Modeling
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG