Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5879)

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Tue, 22 October 2019 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.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 F0A9D1208BA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=czVYMG0H; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=0toraLmI
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 ljuwIlH_ukUV for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58BD01208A4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3881; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1571757353; x=1572966953; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QzvruvaFG4Y3o3kxDHxey8qJiKA+C6IXWwQ1/XjZa34=; b=czVYMG0HP3AH0eOT6dcLhyRnewGTw4Lo53DSnJ4dBzgWBIwcuwGzBMcy siYjmozj3agdO+CM7lakAAz7H+uHzPOU7YAEt6U9fRvIzTYeqb0pv+9Jz ttZligdfHRhuhPQ8Um+uFxSCIPk0e5t9ReytCQIQPUXyZu4bOCaTYtVOs k=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AiowKfBcV6St07yKD/DV7i2dmlGMj4e+mNxMJ6p?= =?us-ascii?q?chl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwGRD57D5adCjOzb++D7VGoM7IzJkUhKcYcEFn?= =?us-ascii?q?pnwd4TgxRmBceEDUPhK/u/dTM7GNhFUndu/mqwNg5eH8OtL1A=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CvAAAQHK9d/51dJa1lGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF7gUtQBWxXIAQLKgqHYwOKWYJciW+OFIJSA1Q?= =?us-ascii?q?JAQEBDAEBGAsKAgEBg3tFAoMqJDgTAgMJAQEEAQEBAgEFBG2FNwyFSwEBAQQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BARAoBgEBLAsBCwQCAQgOAwQBAQEeECEGCx0IAgQBDQUIGoMBgkYDLgECDKc?= =?us-ascii?q?GAoE4iGGCJ4J+AQEFhQkNC4IXAwaBNowPGIFAP4ERRoJMPoEEgRdHAQGBOhE?= =?us-ascii?q?Yg0CCLI0SJoozlQktQQqCJJBBBVWEJoI7h1OPQI42gT+IeIwWgnoCBAIEBQI?= =?us-ascii?q?OAQEFgWkigVhwFRohgmxQEBSDBoNzhRSFP3SBKYwngTEBgSMBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,327,1569283200"; d="scan'208";a="563422971"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 Oct 2019 15:15:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9MFFq0K021930 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:15:52 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:15:51 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:15:50 -0500
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:15:51 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Xai8mhLJQn+qfF2B8FfIHpc6qpr+1lDC1xu3tOxC5qwzlP239jlWj/gcT5mTZBWtTc22EhJudkCLrqbEEZbeN+Ii+u16/toPRr7qhoikVNnrtyacSjJqq5Wp0aXgjdYRsoWosO0HWw9c2DKGyllSq+iUzyhhGfXXvIkbuJ9oEypiwry+gYpnpEs9VxMydKHi/AfYmtiKxl+HsoPR/uOsBdE6GQYbx7Q+OLDNEau+4OUX9iYXyl7JAU+47EE4PMCDtvfNpRTd2zzNngl4moX3r1KrPvIw4vF9LcG8qI/4hZ3wXYs2XZl2NM19n0H79lfhNSg/5WCZsHTtPcc1tCFevA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=zN7ABB7xvL2BdL2WWsCEaVedWMP5SEc+LP2eo3VBhus=; b=TLxrnj4jqcbnOyyjpWtvWFlni8+7clrJUitir3BQ0VyKI5tPAp8If0YpypZfvRI6AVET30XEk1OB2v014Qr650puznQpdKojPOBY8gfjBJ3zQdMiDG6pqTcQ/Rar0vmbdrCwgZpmL4BDVfsnhZ8QK8B83P6w79C1cu97NqHu220k0V22Gt2XFg9IsCRijmFsbRme7W5ArENGPbn4zmX/V0lnrLW+8fWHQWZ2yEsaSY8RVbgxjq4ZnlYlVQ6VGsamcBPp9OnJDRMFaJJywfa6QwwDFy6TlpqB8uyT4dAkcU7aW9Qhipi2BH2CN6vpJpHVkw18vvc1Ybwj40bi7TkluQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=zN7ABB7xvL2BdL2WWsCEaVedWMP5SEc+LP2eo3VBhus=; b=0toraLmImMw0ezZ9lHsXV7Rw9Md/4ij6ykHkHv8tcJN+Gww8886T53vFOw1FjCaCVWx6YxV374uyMUq0UlGea8UUEvjaZOqjxTSCzVywGDK09C8Y9txU2ofoJQuWLynps25x4wmtbT1G+CZtAI3mxTZvZZalcx0PrRD4OD/dZU0=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.209) by MN2PR11MB3821.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.253.216) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2367.24; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:15:49 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cca:41bd:b0bb:c549]) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cca:41bd:b0bb:c549%2]) with mapi id 15.20.2347.029; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:15:49 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
CC: "ibagdona@gmail.com" <ibagdona@gmail.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5879)
Thread-Index: AQHViM30HuRaqySg8UOIHZIEP5XN5qdmwdaAgAACInA=
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:15:49 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB436681482C373D5B2E692899B5680@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20191022114319.CD85BF4071D@rfc-editor.org> <20191022.170229.971604522071303700.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191022.170229.971604522071303700.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rwilton@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.40]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c3b0479b-3a7b-4ec5-6290-08d75702b8aa
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3821:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3821913233E15DA618C7F0DBB5680@MN2PR11MB3821.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 01986AE76B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(346002)(366004)(396003)(376002)(136003)(13464003)(199004)(189003)(6436002)(7736002)(305945005)(229853002)(55016002)(14454004)(3846002)(6506007)(53546011)(966005)(6306002)(26005)(99286004)(6116002)(102836004)(9686003)(4326008)(186003)(64756008)(81166006)(66476007)(52536014)(446003)(76116006)(66556008)(66946007)(5660300002)(86362001)(81156014)(8676002)(478600001)(74316002)(476003)(486006)(8936002)(11346002)(66446008)(33656002)(14444005)(256004)(110136005)(54906003)(25786009)(2906002)(316002)(71200400001)(71190400001)(6246003)(2501003)(7696005)(76176011)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3821; H:MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: +JzX0/5Jni5lRwk3nsxea/Fpqy37U9Blz6LBL4GIt24uAZV1HmchMQhkPnwEl/OahDZXz/XNQVS82hYyq+2SXOsCDJ519vt2eKY7Y03KyR96hSuOvKkBLbNyIcJ/B45x5iOG5AZAIQUHLGIv4MKUGbvQQaFfX2NtriaCiYdxcbYvMrkEZxeFJtbreSXgIXNuF/f6KDgk7Ixvbc+A6xmwXUXenMwDLuEQ/dCaGpcEfSqrF6ksANtpwVMYqFlIAVs26XEU4mF8vSenA5x19Wrj8x+545xiUrfw5QSrM/oyAvcE1et75MSAdvxPAfSwQpBHqfU4bTICPMbkoiINk4qoG/MbQwXjeYaQAc7CKUKHy147B9yK+1J7mm7ULDc8c4hnMJoviIhO13KHMfwtZTKFdd3Dsyixb40T85LoQaI3YsGQ+3InQlAJvzQrpPktmM/AWRKnzqP75q4SW6mE7AzNRId4A3mJMtMF6os+4FqVNMU=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c3b0479b-3a7b-4ec5-6290-08d75702b8aa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Oct 2019 15:15:49.3890 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 2/a75wjIMh92iEtG0cUD+m7CKPa8dfmo064bGOUvfuTm6UZkvgrQG7060inePHw7dWuL4zKbntIOyybiOq7HHA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3821
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/pCTYcgM2fgof4bn0udiPGPiAXjY>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5879)
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, 22 Oct 2019 15:16:20 -0000

I agree with Lada that having such a definition would be useful.

But I also agree with Martin that this isn't really an erratum.

It is also worth noting that RFC 8342 defines:

   o  schema node: A node in the schema tree.  The formal definition is
      provided in RFC 7950.

   o  datastore schema: The combined set of schema nodes for all modules
      supported by a particular datastore, taking into consideration any
      deviations and enabled features for that datastore.

The latest version of the packages draft (not posted yet), defines:

   o  YANG schema: A datastore schema, not bound to any particular
      datastore.

Thanks,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund
> Sent: 22 October 2019 16:02
> To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> Cc: ibagdona@gmail.com; netmod@ietf.org; warren@kumari.net
> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5879)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The problem is that it is not clear that we can use this new definition
> with the rest of the text in the RFC that uses this term.
> For example, section 7.1.5 talks about "the imported module's schema
> tree", and this doesn't really work if the schema tree is not tied to a
> module.
> 
> Also the proposed definition is recursive since it is defined in terms of
> "schema node", and a "schema node" is already defined as "a node in the
> schema tree".
> 
> So it probably makes sense to look at this definition (and the text and
> other definitions) if we do a document update, but as it is currently
> written I think it should be rejected.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> 
> RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; wrote:
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950, "The YANG
> > 1.1 Data Modeling Language".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5879
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>;
> >
> > Section: 3
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > o  schema tree: The definition hierarchy specified within a module.
> >
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > o  schema tree: The hierarchy of schema nodes defined in the set of all
> modules
> >    implemented by a server, as specified in the YANG library data
> [RFC7895].
> >
> >
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > The original definition of the term has two problems:
> >
> > 1. Schema tree is not limited to a single module. Some YANG constructs,
> such as augment and leafref type, may refer to a schema node that is
> defined in another module.
> >
> > 2. Apart from schema nodes, YANG modules contain definitions that do not
> contribute to the schema tree: groupings, typedefs, identities etc.
> >
> > Instructions:
> > -------------
> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected.
> > When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change
> > the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC7950 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language
> > Publication Date    : August 2016
> > Author(s)           : M. Bjorklund, Ed.
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Network Modeling
> > Area                : Operations and Management
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod