[netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 17 February 2022 18:50 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 D61EC3A0F05 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:50:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2GHbxySVcOFp for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:50:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD32E3A0F41 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 499) id 13A2F4C1D9; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:50:35 -0800 (PST)
To: mbj@tail-f.com, warren@kumari.net, rwilton@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, kent+ietf@watsen.net, lberger@labn.net
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: as549r@att.com, netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220217185035.13A2F4C1D9@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:50:35 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/FrFftJKs2kdreFo5NeuewPlidmw>
Subject: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)
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: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:50:41 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950, "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6855 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Alexei Sadovnikov <as549r@att.com> Section: GLOBAL Original Text ------------- 7.5. The "container" Statement 7.5.7. XML Encoding Rules A container node is encoded as an XML element. The element's local name is the container's identifier, and its namespace is the module's XML namespace (see Section 7.1.3). The container's child nodes are encoded as subelements to the container element. If the container defines RPC or action input or output parameters, these subelements are encoded in the same order as they are defined within the "container" statement. Otherwise, the subelements are encoded in any order. 7.8. The "list" Statement 7.8.5. XML Encoding Rules The list's key nodes are encoded as subelements to the list's identifier element, in the same order as they are defined within the "key" statement. The rest of the list's child nodes are encoded as subelements to the list element, after the keys. If the list defines RPC or action input or output parameters, the subelements are encoded in the same order as they are defined within the "list" statement. Otherwise, the subelements are encoded in any order. . . . . . 7.14. The "rpc" Statement 7.14.4. NETCONF XML Encoding Rules . . . . . Input parameters are encoded as child XML elements to the rpc node's XML element, in the same order as they are defined within the "input" statement. If the RPC operation invocation succeeded and no output parameters are returned, the <rpc-reply> contains a single <ok/> element defined in [RFC6241]. If output parameters are returned, they are encoded as child elements to the <rpc-reply> element defined in [RFC6241], in the same order as they are defined within the "output" statement. 7.15. The "action" Statement 7.15.2. NETCONF XML Encoding Rules . . . . . The <action> element contains a hierarchy of nodes that identifies the node in the datastore. It MUST contain all containers and list nodes in the direct path from the top level down to the list or container containing the action. For lists, all key leafs MUST also be included. The innermost container or list contains an XML element that carries the name of the defined action. Within this element, the input parameters are encoded as child XML elements, in the same order as they are defined within the "input" statement. . . . . . If the action operation invocation succeeded and no output parameters are returned, the <rpc-reply> contains a single <ok/> element defined in [RFC6241]. If output parameters are returned, they are encoded as child elements to the <rpc-reply> element defined in [RFC6241], in the same order as they are defined within the "output" statement. Corrected Text -------------- 7.5. The "container" Statement 7.5.7. XML Encoding Rules . . . . . The container's child nodes are encoded as subelements to the container element. If the container defines RPC or action input or output parameters, these subelements MUST be encoded in the same order as they are defined within the "container" statement. Otherwise, the subelements are encoded in any order. 7.8. The "list" Statement 7.8.5. XML Encoding Rules The list's key nodes MUST be encoded as subelements to the list's identifier element, in the same order as they are defined within the "key" statement. The rest of the list's child nodes are encoded as subelements to the list element, after the keys. If the list defines RPC or action input or output parameters, the subelements MUST be encoded in the same order as they are defined within the "list" statement. Otherwise, the subelements are encoded in any order. . . . . . 7.14. The "rpc" Statement 7.14.4. NETCONF XML Encoding Rules . . . . . Input parameters MUST be encoded as child XML elements to the rpc node's XML element, in the same order as they are defined within the "input" statement. If the RPC operation invocation succeeded and no output parameters are returned, the <rpc-reply> contains a single <ok/> element defined in [RFC6241]. If output parameters are returned, they MUST be encoded as child elements to the <rpc-reply> element defined in [RFC6241], in the same order as they are defined within the "output" statement. 7.15. The "action" Statement 7.15.2. NETCONF XML Encoding Rules . . . . . The <action> element contains a hierarchy of nodes that identifies the node in the datastore. It MUST contain all containers and list nodes in the direct path from the top level down to the list or container containing the action. For lists, all key leafs MUST also be included. The innermost container or list contains an XML element that carries the name of the defined action. Within this element, the input parameters MUST be encoded as child XML elements, in the same order as they are defined within the "input" statement. . . . . . If the action operation invocation succeeded and no output parameters are returned, the <rpc-reply> contains a single <ok/> element defined in [RFC6241]. If output parameters are returned, they MUST be encoded as child elements to the <rpc-reply> element defined in [RFC6241], in the same order as they are defined within the "output" statement. Notes ----- The RFC 2119 keywords are missing in description of ordering for XML encoding rules for RPC, actions and references thereto and in additional instance of list keys encoding. Although the text of RFC suggests reading this as if "MUST" was present, without keyword it is open to interpretation if the sentences actually mean "MUST" or "SHOULD" or may be even "MAY". In other places discussing ordering, for example 7.7.8., 7.8.5. and 7.9.5. the "MUST" is actually present, hence proposed errata would make ordering description usage of keywords consistent. 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. -------------------------------------- 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
- [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (685… RFC Errata System
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Jernej Tuljak
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 … Andy Bierman