[L2sm] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8466 (6383)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 02 October 2023 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88EEC15107F; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=0.732, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9EQVTj5C1aB5; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (unknown [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17B2BC151535; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id D7F00E76D3; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: jlucek@juniper.net, bin_wen@comcast.com, giuseppe.fioccola@tim.it, xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn, luay.jalil@verizon.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, iesg@ietf.org, l2sm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20231002145918.D7F00E76D3@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 07:59:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2sm/Tr-OJGbz_y8qnqM_uTe4zvwSCYc>
Subject: [L2sm] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8466 (6383)
X-BeenThere: l2sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Layer Two Virtual Private Network Service Model \(L2SM\)" <l2sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l2sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 14:59:23 -0000

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC8466, "A YANG Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Service Delivery". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6383

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: Julian Lucek <jlucek@juniper.net>
Date Reported: 2021-01-08
Held by: Rob Wilton (IESG)

Section: 8

Original Text
-------------
container service {
              container svc-bandwidth {
                if-feature "input-bw";
                list bandwidth {
                  key "direction type";
                  leaf direction {
                    type identityref {
                      base bw-direction;
                    }
                    description
                      "Indicates the bandwidth direction.  It can be
                       the bandwidth download direction from the SP to
                       the site or the bandwidth upload direction from
                       the site to the SP.";
                  }

Corrected Text
--------------


Notes
-----
The svc-bandwidth container is triggered by if-feature "input-bw". However, that container can contain input-bw only, output-bw only or both. It might be better to have two separate containers, one for input-bw and the other for output-bw, triggered by if-feature "input-bw" and if-feature "output-bw" respectively.

The bug looks to be valid, but this erratum has been marked as "Hold For Document Update" because further discussion is required as to the solution, and it will require a new revision of the YANG module which will require a new RFC to be published.

--------------------------------------
RFC8466 (draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-10)
--------------------------------------
Title               : A YANG Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Service Delivery
Publication Date    : October 2018
Author(s)           : B. Wen, G. Fioccola, Ed., C. Xie, L. Jalil
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : L2VPN Service Model
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG