[netmod] Open Errata 5517 RFC 7950 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5517

Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Tue, 24 September 2019 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 63C2F12084B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 09:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 0LISRvjcuddd for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 09:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56AF412084A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 09:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2607:fb90:3653:cad:99bc:c23b:5b02:fd83] ([IPv6:2607:fb90:3653:cad:99bc:c23b:5b02:fd83]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x8OGrdwk094413 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:53:41 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2201947E-C5E2-4E3D-B127-DE08F01E3971"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Message-Id: <83B9ABBB-3408-4789-B666-4494E506D8B8@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 09:53:39 -0700
To: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/bK6dvJNIGV0anAHPVfKo-V1A5Uw>
Subject: [netmod] Open Errata 5517 RFC 7950 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5517
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, 24 Sep 2019 16:53:45 -0000

Reported By: Rohit R Ranade

Section 10.4.2 says:

   The derived-from-or-self() function returns "true" if any node in the
   argument "nodes" is a node of type "identityref" and its value is an
   identity that is equal to or derived from (see Section 7.18.2) the
   identity "identity"; otherwise, it returns "false".

It should say:

 The derived-from-or-self() function returns "true" if any node in the
 argument "nodes" is a node of type equal to or derived 
 from "identityref" and its value is an identity that is equal to or
 derived from (see Section 7.18.2) the identity "identity"; 
 otherwise, it returns "false".

Martin Bjorklund wrote

I agree that the text needs clarification.  However, I propose this
text instead:

 The derived-from-or-self() function returns "true" if any node in the
 argument "nodes" is a node of type "identityref" or a type derived
 from "identityref", and its value is an identity that is equal to or
 derived from (see Section 7.18.2) the identity "identity"; 
 otherwise, it returns "false".


Ladislav Lhotka wrote

This formulation is better.

It is somewhat confusing that "derived from" has two unrelated meanings in the
same sentence.


This errata is processed as accepted,  the errata clarifies that the function returns true from the case where "a node is of a type derived
 from "identityref"" in addition to the case where the node is of type indetityref. this is a clarification and can we believe be read properly in conjunction with the existing RFC.


Thanks
Joel