Re: [netmod] augment target statements

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 24 January 2017 09:22 UTC

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:22:41 +0100
Message-Id: <20170124.102241.529914951480970461.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: mvasko@cesnet.cz
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <79d3-58871a80-f-4410ef80@3855248>
References: <79d3-58871a80-f-4410ef80@3855248>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/qjFOjtYMvEIo4iIaWsGFlt3jVOw>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] augment target statements
Precedence: list

Hi,

Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
> we have noticed that RFC 7950 page 120, when mentioning augment
> substatements targeting container, list, case, input, output, and
> notification, skips "anydata" and "anyxml".

This is correct; the *target* of an "augment" cannot be "anydata" or
"anyxml".

> Based on the next section
> 7.17.1. and the grammar, it seems not intentional and we wanted to
> submit errata.

7.17.1 lists substatemets to the "augement" statement, i.e., valid
nodes to *add to* the target node.

> Also, in the same paragraph, the target notification is allowed and
> mentioned, but action not. Again, is that intentional or just an
> oversight? Thanks.

Intentional.  The target of an augment cannot be an "action" (or
"rpc").  Note that the target can be "input" or "output".  (And note
that the "input" and "output" nodes always exist as children to
rpc/action)

/martin

[netmod] augment target statements Michal Vaško
Re: [netmod] augment target statements Martin Bjorklund
Re: [netmod] ?==?utf-8?q? augment target statemen… Michal Vaško
Re: [netmod] augment target statements Martin Bjorklund