Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8342 (5514)

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

> After reading the RFC details, it seems that the example is intentional based on
> the text about NP-containers.
>
> I think an errata could be used because the sentence about a top-level origin must be defined
> could be interpreted to define "top-level" as the topmost level for which the origin property
> is applicable.  It appears the intent was to exclude NP-containers from this requirement.

Yes, it was intentional to exclude np-containers, I view something like:

OLD:
    The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes must be specified.
NEW:
    The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes, except
    non-presence containers, must be specified.

to be almost editorial in nature.  That said, I also do not think that it’s needed, in that I think
one could argue that an np-container isn’t actually “configuration” at all, it’s just implicitly
there providing a skeleton to hang stuff off of.

RFC 8342 says:

   o  configuration: Data that is required to get a device from its
      initial default state into a desired operational state.

An np-container doesn’t actually do this.   RFC 7950 says:

   o  non-presence container: A container that has no meaning of its
      own, existing only to contain child nodes.

Bingo.  RFC 7950 also says:

   o  data node: A node in the schema tree that can be instantiated in a
       data tree.  One of container, leaf, leaf-list, list,  anydata, and anyxml.

Note that it says “container” without clarification.  Clearly an np-container isn’t “data”
so, if there is to be an errata, perhaps it should be against  RFC 7950, for instance:

NEW
   o  data node: A node in the schema tree that can be instantiated in a
       data tree.  One of presence container, leaf, leaf-list, list,  anydata, and anyxml.


Kent // contributor