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

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Bjorklund" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 2:41 PM

> 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

'Adjusted' might be seen as a weasel word:-)

   If the XPath expression is defined in a substatement to a
      "notification" statement, the accessible tree is the notification
      instance, all state data in the server, and the running
      configuration datastore.

becomes

If the XPath expression is defined in a substatement to a
      "notification" statement, the accessible tree is the notification
      instance and all operational state in the server.

Goodbye <running> (well, running configuration in RFC7950).  Is it a
material difference? - it will take me a while to work that one out.

I focussed on the XPath rules because they seemed the clearest case, but
updating the definitions, and saying this section will replace the
definitions in [RFC6241] and [RFC7950] when these documents are revised
seems .... well, like an Erratum held for Update i.e. another Updates.

Tom Petch


> /martin