Re: [netmod] Erratum 5514 on NMDA [RFC 8342]

One small concern with the proposed NEW text is that it suggests that an NP-container is configuration, which I think is untrue.  Thusly, maybe the following tweak is better?

s/except/which excludes/

NEWER:
    The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes, which excludes
    non-presence containers, must be specified.

Still, my preferred fix is captured at the end of the linked mail archive (i.e., fix the source definition for “data node” in RFC 7950...and reject this errata). 

K.  // contributor 

> On May 4, 2020, at 6:15 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Are there any other comments on the proposed resolution of this erratum?
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund
>> Sent: 28 April 2020 16:47
>> To: rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
>> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] Erratum 5514 on NMDA [RFC 8342]
>> 
>> "Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> There is one open erratum on NMDA from 2018 that I would like to
>>> process.
>>> 
>>> The erratum is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5514
>>> 
>>> There has been quite a lot of discussion on this erratum previously on
>>> the NETMOD alias.  The last email in the thread was
>>> 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/LHJZmf5gtESX6Nobwst0OwXbGG4/
>>> 
>>>> From my reading of the discussion, I don't think that there is clear
>>>> WG consensus between the two competing concerns:
>>> (1) The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes must be
>>> specified (section 7, YANG annotation definition).
>>> (2) The origin applies to all configuration nodes except non-presence
>>> containers (section 5.3.4).
>>> 
>>> Hence my proposal is to mark this as "Hold for Document Update" with
>>> Kent's proposed resolution of changing the description in the YANG
>>> model.
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>>    The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes must be
>>>    specified.
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>>    The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes, except
>>>    non-presence containers, must be specified.
>>> 
>>> For reference, this will mean that the extension [NEW] is defined as:
>>> 
>>>     md:annotation origin {
>>>       type origin-ref;
>>>       description
>>>         "The 'origin' annotation can be present on any configuration
>>>          data node in the operational state datastore.  It specifies
>>>          from where the node originated.  If not specified for a given
>>>          configuration data node, then the origin is the same as the
>>>          origin of its parent node in the data tree.  The origin for
>>>          any top-level configuration data nodes, except non-presence
>>>          containers,  must be specified.";
>>>     }
>>> 
>>> Please can you let me know if you support or object to this
>>> resolution.  I'll leave it a week to see if there is consensus before
>>> processing the erratum.
>> 
>> I think this is ok.
>> 
>> 
>> /martin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod