Re: [netmod] leafref and identityref
Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 21 October 2019 12:02 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
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 C4B6D120110 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 05:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 b4e0rdOp0dvo for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 05:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D801200EB for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 05:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.41]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C02C71AE018A; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:02:18 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:01:50 +0200
Message-Id: <20191021.140150.1807416568931644257.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: lhotka@nic.cz
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <6af41ca9659453dfe9f573c6827877e70cd27a7e.camel@nic.cz>
References: <8736fmtk3d.fsf@nic.cz> <20191021.134014.40553165389352172.mbj@tail-f.com> <6af41ca9659453dfe9f573c6827877e70cd27a7e.camel@nic.cz>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/VTr-8gEiQg-TBTXrFWwGp3K6Suc>
Subject: Re: [netmod] leafref and identityref
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, 21 Oct 2019 12:02:22 -0000
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: > On Mon, 2019-10-21 at 13:40 +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > consider the following situation: > > > > > > module A { > > > ... > > > prefix a > > > identity X; > > > leaf foo { > > > type identityref { > > > base X; > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > > > > module B { > > > ... > > > import A { > > > prefix a; > > > } > > > leaf fooref { > > > type leafref { > > > path "/a:foo"; > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > > > > What is now a correct lexical form of fooref's value? Could it be just > > > 'X', or is the prefix required, i.e. 'a:X'? > > > > > > This is not very clear from RFC 7950 (sections 9.9.4 and 9.10.3). I am > > > inclined to require the prefix. > > > > 9.10.3 says: > > > > If the prefix is not > > present, the namespace of the identityref is the default namespace > > in effect on the element that contains the identityref value. > > > > > > so the interpretation of a missing prefix in "fooref" is that the > > identity is defined in module B. > > > > (a missing prefix in "foo" means that the identity is defined in > > module A) > > To be more specific, here is an example instance: > > <foo xmlns="...namespace of A...">X</foo> > <fooref xmlns="...namespace of B...">X</fooref> > > It can be argued that this is correct because (sec. 9.9.4): > > A leafref value is lexically represented the same way as the leaf it > references represents its value. > > That is, the same lexical representation is assumed, which is exactly what we > have in the example. It doesn't say that the lexical value is exactly the same, but "represented the same way" - so when the lexical representation is context dependent we have this situation. > It seems that we agree that it is incorrect, but then sec. 9.9.4 should be > clarified. /martin
- Re: [netmod] leafref and identityref Ladislav Lhotka
- [netmod] leafref and identityref Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] leafref and identityref Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] leafref and identityref Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] leafref and identityref Ladislav Lhotka
- [netmod] A reworking of RFC8343 tom petch
- Re: [netmod] A reworking of RFC8343 tom petch
- Re: [netmod] A reworking of RFC8343 Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] A reworking of RFC8343 Dmytro Shytyi
- Re: [netmod] A reworking of RFC8343
- Re: [netmod] A reworking of RFC8343 Dmytro Shytyi
- Re: [netmod] A reworking of RFC8343
- Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-04 Dmytro Shytyi
- Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-04