Re: [netmod] Adding a pre-existing leaf into a new 'choice'

On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 11:05 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 10:22:11AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> writes:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:00:27PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > > Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 9.9 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.9>;.  The leafref
> > > > > > Built-In Type
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >    The leafref built-in type is restricted to the value space of
> > > > > > some
> > > > > >    leaf or leaf-list node in the schema tree and optionally further
> > > > > >    restricted by corresponding instance nodes in the data tree.  The
> > > > > >    "path" substatement (Section 9.9.2
> > > > > > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.9.2>;) is used to
> > > > > > identify the referred
> > > > > >    leaf or leaf-list node in the schema tree.  The value space of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > >    referring node is the value space of the referred node.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, it should be "data tree" in both occurrences.
> > > > 
> > > > Time for an errata?
> > > 
> > > Here is the old discussion thread:
> > > 
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg15979.html
> > > 
> > > Everything relevant had been extensively discussed in it, and I am
> > > sceptical that we can come up with anything significantly better - it
> > > will only be more (or different) hand-waving. The problem is inherent in
> > > the leafref design introduced in YANG 1.1. It won't go away no matter
> > > how much we paper over it.
> > > 
> > 
> > So you think the use of 'schema tree' in the text quoted above (is
> > used to identify the referred leaf or leaf-list node in the schema
> > tree) is correct??
> > 
> > I do not want to discuss whether you like the design of leafrefs or
> > not here - at this time we should focus on whether the text is correct
> > or not given the design we have. So again, you think that 'schema
> > tree' is correct in the statement?
> 
> After reading the quoted thread and thinking some more, I think the
> text in 9.9 is in fact correct.  As Lada wrote in that thread:
>  
>    2. It [path] also implicitly refers to a leaf node in the schema
>       [...]
> 
> The problem is that this "implicit reference" isn't defined.  9.9
> talks about reference to a schema node, and 9.9.2 talks about the data
> tree, but there is no text that ties these together.

Agreed. Lada

> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

Re: [netmod] Adding a pre-existing leaf into a new 'choice' - NBC change?