[netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5807)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 13 August 2019 11:26 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 0398D12011B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 04:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RLMT5VCA1GHw for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 04:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 274EF12011A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 04:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 82CE8B80E16; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 04:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: mbj@tail-f.com, ibagdona@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net, joelja@bogus.com, kent+ietf@watsen.net, lberger@labn.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si, netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20190813112613.82CE8B80E16@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 04:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Pmlrk8uqNsUpFTAkUZY1M2VwcrA>
Subject: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5807)
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: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:26:18 -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/eid5807

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si>;

Section: 7.21.5.

Original Text
-------------
   o  If the "when" statement is a child of a "uses", "choice", or
      "case" statement, then the context node is the closest ancestor
      node to the node with the "when" statement that is also a data
      node.  If no such node exists, the context node is the root node.
      The accessible tree is tentatively altered during the processing
      of the XPath expression by removing all instances (if any) of the
      nodes added by the "uses", "choice", or "case" statement.

Corrected Text
--------------
   o  If the "when" statement is a child of a "uses", "choice", or
      "case" statement, then the context node is the closest ancestor
      node to the node with the "when" statement that is also a data
      node, rpc, action or notification.  If no such node exists, the
      context node is the root node. The accessible tree is tentatively
      altered during the processing of the XPath expression by removing
      all instances (if any) of the nodes added by the "uses",
      "choice", or "case" statement.

Notes
-----
Similar to verified errata 4794 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4794) but covers the "uses", "choice" and "case" corner case (instead of "augment"). If the node for which the "when" statement is defined is within an rpc, action or notification, the context node also needs to be inside that rpc, action or notification. There are published IETF modules, which rely on this to be true, such as "ietf-netconf-nmda@2019-01-07" in RFC8526 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8526) at schema node id "/ncds:get-data/ncds:input/ncds:origin-filters". Original text assigns the context node to the root node, if no data node ancestor is found. "rpc", "action" and "notification" are not data nodes and are represented by nodes that are descendants of the root node, as described in Section 6.4.1.

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