[L2sm] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8466 (6699)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 02 October 2023 14:47 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 C35B5C1527A0; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.468
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.468 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_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 NhzNSKIKQ817; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:47:32 -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 3D64AC151535; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 14029E7292; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, 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: <20231002144732.14029E7292@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 07:47:32 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2sm/bj_uTb8ryS5NegY_onYmXMs9mvk>
Subject: [L2sm] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8466 (6699)
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 14:47:36 -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/eid6699 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Technical Reported by: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Date Reported: 2021-10-01 Held by: Rob Wilton (IESG) Section: 8 Original Text ------------- container lacp { if-feature "lacp"; leaf enabled { type boolean; default "false"; description "LACP on/off. By default, LACP is disabled."; } leaf mode { type neg-mode; description "LACP mode. LACP modes have active mode and passive mode ('false'). 'Active mode' means initiating the auto-speed negotiation and trying to form an Ethernet channel with the other end. 'Passive mode' means not initiating the negotiation but responding to LACP packets initiated by the other end (e.g., full duplex or half duplex)."; } Corrected Text -------------- container lacp { if-feature "lacp"; leaf enabled { type boolean; default "false"; description "LACP on/off. By default, LACP is disabled."; } leaf mode { type identityref { base lacp-mode; } description "LACP mode. LACP modes have active mode and passive mode ('false'). 'Active mode' means initiating the auto-speed negotiation and trying to form an Ethernet channel with the other end. 'Passive mode' means not initiating the negotiation but responding to LACP packets initiated by the other end (e.g., full duplex or half duplex)."; } Also, make this change: OLD: | +--rw lag-interfaces {lag-interface}? | | +--rw lag-interface* [index] | | +--rw index string | | +--rw lacp {lacp}? | | +--rw enabled? boolean | | +--rw mode? neg-mode NEW: | +--rw lag-interfaces {lag-interface}? | | +--rw lag-interface* [index] | | +--rw index string | | +--rw lacp {lacp}? | | +--rw enabled? boolean | | +--rw mode? identityref Notes ----- The LACP mode can be set to active or passive, which is not what neg-mode is supposed to cover. lacp-mode identity should be used, instead. The errata looks valid, but given this requires a new revision of the YANG module a new RFC needs 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
- [L2sm] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8466 … RFC Errata System