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

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

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.


Andy


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:19:42PM +0100, t.petch wrote:
> > This I-D updates RFC7950, since it changes the XPath context that YANG
> > uses, yet there is no mention of 'Updates'
>
> I think the editors of the document reached the conclusion that the
> xpath context rules stated in section 5.1. are the only meaningful
> interpretation which is consistent with what RFC 7950 says.
>
> The question is whether the text 'changes' the xpath context, or
> 'refines' the xpath context, or 'clarifies' the xpath context.  On a
> synchronous system (where intended config and applied config never
> differ), there is no change at all.
>
> That said, I have no strong opinion about the question whether section
> 5.1 requires an 'Updates: RFC 7950' or not. I do not think section 5.1
> is relevant for a system that uses RFC 7950 without implementing NMDA
> and hence the value of having a forward pointer from RFC 7950 to NMDA
> is likely not critical to have.
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>