Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-01.txt

From: Jernej Tuljak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 14:04:24 +0100

I see that the issues I raised regarding XPath expressions 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg10172.html) have 
now made it into rfc6087bis-01 section 5.5.

Section 5.5.1, what should a YANG compiler return for 'namespace-uri()' 
and 'name()' function if they are used?

I still disagree with Section 5.5.2 Axes, where it describes usage 
guidelines of preceding-sibling and following-sibling. These may be used 
without issue if document order does not affect the outcome of the 
expression, the same way preceding and following can be. See Ladislav's 
suggestion for a possible solution 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg10191.html).

Section 5.5.4. Wildcards:
* (first paragraph) the last sentence ("This is due to augmenting nodes 
from other modules."), seems redundant or wrong. Augmentation is not the 
only thing that affects XPath expressions that use wildcards. Simply 
implementing another module that defines a data tree is enough.
* (second paragraph) the asterisk is not an operator in the context 
where it is being described, it is a node test. The asterisk that 
represents an operator in XPath has nothing to do with this text which 
may lead to confusion.
* (second paragraph) term "augmenting objects" should probably be 
"augmented objects".

Jernej

Dne 30.10.2014 12:53, piše Martin Bjorklund:
> Hi,
>
> A gentle reminder of a draft in the need of review!
>
> Number of reviews so far: 0
>
>
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:36:43AM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have posted draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-01.txt, which addresses 11
>>> of our issues.  These issues are now in the REVIEW state in the issues
>>> list (https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html)
>>>
>>> Please review the draft or the diff to make sure that these issues are
>>> properly addressed.  When these are reviewed, I will post a new
>>> version with a new set of issues addressed.
>>>
>> WG members,
>>
>> once you have reviewed the changes, send a short note to the list so
>> that we can track that reviews of the edits have been done.
>>
>> /js
>
> /martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: Jernej Tuljak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 14:07:00 +0100

I seem to have somehow replied to the wrong thread. Please fix.

Jernej

Dne 5.11.2014 14:04, piše Jernej Tuljak:
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg10172.html) 
> have now made it into rfc6087bis-01 section 5.5.
>
> Section 5.5.1, what should a YANG compiler return for 
> 'namespace-uri()' and 'name()' function if they are used?
>
> guidelines of preceding-sibling and following-sibling. These may be 
> used without issue if document order does not affect the outcome of 
> the expression, the same way preceding and following can be. See 
> Ladislav's suggestion for a possible solution 
> * (first paragraph) the last sentence ("This is due to augmenting 
> nodes from other modules."), seems redundant or wrong. Augmentation is 
> not the only thing that affects XPath expressions that use wildcards. 
> Simply implementing another module that defines a data tree is enough.

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 14:10:15 +0100 (CET)

> I seem to have somehow replied to the wrong thread. Please fix.

Do you want me to go back in time and make sure you reply to the right
thread ;)

/martin

> > * from other modules."), seems redundant or wrong. Augmentation is not
> > * the only thing that affects XPath expressions that use
> > * wildcards. Simply implementing another module that defines a data tree
> > * is enough.
> > * where it is being described, it is a node test. The asterisk that
> > * represents an operator in XPath has nothing to do with this text which
> > * may lead to confusion.
> > * "augmented objects".

---

From: Jernej Tuljak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 14:13:10 +0100

> Do you want me to go back in time and make sure you reply to the right

Point taken. Sorry.

Jernej