----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 2:41 PM
> Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@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 'Adjusted' might be seen as a weasel word:-) If the XPath expression is defined in a substatement to a "notification" statement, the accessible tree is the notification instance, all state data in the server, and the running configuration datastore. becomes If the XPath expression is defined in a substatement to a "notification" statement, the accessible tree is the notification instance and all operational state in the server. Goodbye <running> (well, running configuration in RFC7950). Is it a material difference? - it will take me a while to work that one out. I focussed on the XPath rules because they seemed the clearest case, but updating the definitions, and saying this section will replace the definitions in [RFC6241] and [RFC7950] when these documents are revised seems .... well, like an Erratum held for Update i.e. another Updates. Tom Petch > /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod