[netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (4794)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 02 September 2016 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 10B3712D53B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 04:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 O_g82AbiMFFd for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 04:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC34E12D512 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 04:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B934DB80FDC; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 04:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: mbj@tail-f.com, bclaise@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, lberger@labn.net, kwatsen@juniper.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20160902111849.B934DB80FDC@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:18:49 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/yRotXg9Ta8ew7_k8DnVk1a78ZSI>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (4794)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:18:51 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950,
"The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7950&eid=4794

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>

Section: 7.21.5

Original Text
-------------
   o  If the "when" statement is a child of an "augment" statement, then
      the context node is the augment's target node in the data tree, if
      the target node is a data node.  Otherwise, the context node is
      the closest ancestor node to the target node that is also a data
      node.  If no such node exists, the context node is the root node.
      The accessible tree is tentatively altered during the processing
      of the XPath expression by removing all instances (if any) of the
      nodes added by the "augment" statement.


Corrected Text
--------------
   o  If the "when" statement is a child of an "augment" statement, then
      the context node is the augment's target node in the data tree, if
      the target node is a data node, rpc, action or notification.
      Otherwise, the context node is the closest ancestor node to the
      target node that is also a data node, rpc, action or notification.
      If no such node exists, the context node is the root node. The
      accessible tree is tentatively altered during the processing of
      the XPath expression by removing all instances (if any) of the
      nodes added by the "augment" statement.


Notes
-----
If the target node of an "augment" is inside an rpc, action or notification, the context node also needs to be inside that rpc, action or notification. For example, if the target node is the "input" node of an action, the context node should be the action node, not the data node for which the action is defined as the original text implies. This is also in accordance with the definition of the accessible tree in Sec. 6.4.1.

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 (IESG)
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              : NETCONF Data Modeling Language
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG