Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

My concern is that the definition of <running> is being changed to
include undefined and undeclared proprietary extensions.
This is counter-productive to the IETF's stated goal of interoperability.


Andy


On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC
> > > 7950.
> > > > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a
> > > standards
> > > > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative text,
> > > > especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior.
> > > >
> > >
> > > RFC 8174:
> > >
> > >    o  These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not
> > >       required.  Specifically, normative text does not require the use
> > >       of these key words.  They are used for clarity and consistency
> > >       when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text does not
> > >       use them and is still normative.
> > >
> > >
> > So what?
> > Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms.
> > This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case.
>
> Actually, section 5.1 XPath Context in the revised datastore draft
> uses the same language as section 6.4.1 XPath Context in RFC 7950.  In
> fact, the text in the draft is copied (and adjusted) from RFC 7950.
>
>
> /martin
>