Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:35:44PM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote:
> [re-sent w/ correct address]
> 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > two comments:
> > 
> > - It is unclear to me whether this really qualifies as an errata.
> > 
> > - If we add this, then there should probably text about which
> >   combinations are allowed. For example, for pattern and ranges, there
> >   is explicit text that says further restrictions of the value space
> >   are possible, bot not expansions. If we follow that logic, then
> > 
> >   typedef a {
> >     type leaf-ref {
> >       path "/some/thing";
> >       require-instance true;
> >     }
> >   }
> > 
> >   typedef b {
> >     type a {
> >       require-instance false;
> >     }
> >   }
> > 
> >   might be illegal since b has a larger value space than a.
> 
> The value space of b is the same as for a. "require-instance" doesn't
> change the value space; it changes semantic validation of the given
> values ((see my mail from 17 Mar, "Require-instance problem").
> 
> /martin

OK. If we consider require-instance a constraint and not a
restriction, then the motivation for this errata is at least
confusing:

  Since no one argued against this understanding, this errata changes
  the text to the same form as in other restrictions applicable to
  derived types.

Simply put: Do you think it is OK to overwrite a require-instance true
with a require-instance false in a derived type?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>