I propose option 1) and add an issue on yang-next (if not already
there yet).
/js
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 04:24:35PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> For the errata, it looks like there are two choices:
>
> 1) We reject this errata, on the grounds that it is unclear on what the
> behaviour was expected to be. It is left unspecified as to whether
> require-instance is allowed in a typedef. We add an issue on the YANG.Next
> issue tracker to sort this out in a future revision of YANG.
>
> 2) We agree on what the expected behaviour should be, in which case it may be
> possible that this can be "Hold for document update", although it still seems
> questionable whether this really fits as an errata.
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
> > Sent: 03 April 2020 15:52
> > To: netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
> >
> > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 14:01 +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Martin,
> > >
> > > I believe you that the technical "value space" doesn't change, but
> > > that leaf would suddenly accept more values than it did before right?
> > > I'm wondering if we want to follow the "spirit" here, or stick with the
> > "value space" argument.
> >
> > I agree with Martin here. Moreover, if such a derived type is added, it
> > doesn't change anything related to existing data, because they use the
> > base type as before. New data nodes may use the new type but no confusion
> > can arise - their type has "require-instance false", which is correct.
> >
> > Lada
> >
> > >
> > > I'm not really certain what the implications are (and maybe someone
> > > has an example of why it is better to allow it?) but overwriting
> > > require-instance with 'false' doesn't feel right.
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Martin Björklund <mbj+i...@4668.se>
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 9:54 AM
> > > > To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.ste...@nokia.com>
> > > > Cc: rwilton=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org; j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> > > > university.de; mbj+i...@4668.se; war...@kumari.net; netmod@ietf.org;
> > > > rfc- edi...@rfc-editor.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
> > > > > I don't think we should allow overwriting a require-instance true
> > > > > with a require-instance false in a derived type. It seems to go
> > > > > against the spirit of avoiding expansion of allowable values.
> > > >
> > > > As I wrote earlier in this thread, the value space doesn't change
> > > > with require-instance.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From section 4.1 of RFC7950:
> > > > >
> > > > > Derived types can restrict their base type's set of valid
> > > > > values
> > > > >
> > > > > And this text in section 7.3.4 implies that derived types only do
> > > > > further restriction:
> > > > >
> > > > > If the type's default value is not valid according to the new
> > > > > restrictions specified in a derived type or leaf definition, the
> > > > > derived type or leaf definition MUST specify a new default value
> > > > > compatible with the restrictions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Going the other direction (overwriting with require-instance true)
> > > > > seems OK to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton
> > > > > > (rwilton)
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 8:06 AM
> > > > > > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > > > > > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>;
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > Björklund <mbj+i...@4668.se>
> > > > > > Cc: war...@kumari.net; netmod@ietf.org;
> > > > > > rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Juergen
> > > > > > Schoenwaelder
> > > > > > > Sent: 27 March 2020 16:13
> > > > > > > To: Martin Björklund <mbj+i...@4668.se>
> > > > > > > Cc: ibagd...@gmail.com; war...@kumari.net; netmod@ietf.org;
> > > > > > > rfc- edi...@rfc-editor.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950
> > > > > > > (6031)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:35:44PM +0100, Martin Björklund
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > [re-sent w/ correct address]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > two comments:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - It is unclear to me whether this really qualifies as an
> > errata.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - If we add this, then there should probably text about
> > which
> > > > > > > > > combinations are allowed. For example, for pattern and
> > > > > > > > > ranges,
> > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is explicit text that says further restrictions of the
> > > > > > > > > value space
> > > > > > > > > are possible, bot not expansions. If we follow that
> > > > > > > > > logic, then
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > typedef a {
> > > > > > > > > type leaf-ref {
> > > > > > > > > path "/some/thing";
> > > > > > > > > require-instance true;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > typedef b {
> > > > > > > > > type a {
> > > > > > > > > require-instance false;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > might be illegal since b has a larger value space than a.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The value space of b is the same as for a. "require-instance"
> > > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > change the value space; it changes semantic validation of
> > > > > > > > the given values ((see my mail from 17 Mar, "Require-instance
> > problem").
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /martin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK. If we consider require-instance a constraint and not a
> > > > > > > restriction, then the motivation for this errata is at least
> > > > > > > confusing:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since no one argued against this understanding, this errata
> > changes
> > > > > > > the text to the same form as in other restrictions applicable
> > to
> > > > > > > derived types.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Simply put: Do you think it is OK to overwrite a
> > > > > > > require-instance true with a require-instance false in a derived
> > type?
> > > > > > [RW]
> > > > > > I'm not sure, but going in the other direction seems plausible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > E.g. you start with a typedef that is explicitly
> > > > > > require-instance false that is then refined by a typedef to be
> > > > > > require-instance true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Rob
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > /js
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > > > > > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen |
> > Germany
> > > > > > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-
> > university.de/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > netmod mailing list
> > > > > > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > netmod mailing list
> > > > > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > --
> > Ladislav Lhotka
> > Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
