IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Sun, 17 September 2017 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 7CB2E132F84; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 06:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 PdEebcbCAT2v; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 06:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B152D13306A; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 06:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (h-40-225.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [94.254.40.225]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 083B01AE0383; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:40:10 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:41:15 +0200
Message-Id: <20170917.154115.791964858062115650.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: andy@yumaworks.com
Cc: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, ietfc@btconnect.com, lberger@labn.net, netmod@ietf.org, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHT8CMCAnqf6Oe1bKMzQ-B_0GjrQiQ8YXgQJvCo-NBOBBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABCOCHQcSUSUZMvzVGyaXObHadZqksKge89_6YcH9PCbxMCG=g@mail.gmail.com> <20170916072403.xp37556z6g7b42gr@elstar.local> <CABCOCHT8CMCAnqf6Oe1bKMzQ-B_0GjrQiQ8YXgQJvCo-NBOBBA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ym26vtpGp_uMgks4Dc9rCL64ufA>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 13:40:17 -0000

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC
> > 7950.
> > > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a
> > standards
> > > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative text,
> > > especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior.
> > >
> >
> > RFC 8174:
> >
> >    o  These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not
> >       required.  Specifically, normative text does not require the use
> >       of these key words.  They are used for clarity and consistency
> >       when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text does not
> >       use them and is still normative.
> >
> >
> So what?
> Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms.
> This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case.

Actually, section 5.1 XPath Context in the revised datastore draft
uses the same language as section 6.4.1 XPath Context in RFC 7950.  In
fact, the text in the draft is copied (and adjusted) from RFC 7950.


/martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email