----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 8:58 AM
> "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > > ----- 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. > > The difference is that the xpath expressions no longer sees unused > configuration in running. But if the config is used, it exists in > <operational> under the same path as before, and it is available. > > > 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. > > Are you saying that this is an argument for having "Updates: 7950"? Yes Tom Petch > > /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
