Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8525 (6484)

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:34 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>
wrote:

> I still think that “Hold for Document Update” is the right outcome for
> this errata.  I.e., this is a valid problem and should be fixed if a new
> version of the module is published.
>
>
>
> But I’m opposed to using an errata to change a YANG module published in an
> RFC.  That would mean that there are now two revisions of the YANG module
> with the same date but different content.
>
>
>

All Errata for YANG modules changes the YANG module.

I do not see why this needs to be held for update but that is OK.

Here is the text in the RFC

     revision 2019-01-04 {
       description
         "Added support for multiple datastores according to the
          Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).";
       reference
         "RFC 8525 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8525>: YANG Library";
     }
     revision 2016-04-09 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";
       reference
         "RFC 7895 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7895>: YANG Module Library";
     }

The revision date of the 2nd entry is wrong.
This is not a valid revision that needs to be preserved in the future.
I do not see what real tools break if the date of a previous revision is
wrong.
It seems like we would have noticed before 2+ years if this broke real
tools.

Why would changing the 2016 date be an NBC change?
There is no machine usage of revision-stmt 2 - N in YANG whatsoever.

Andy

> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
> *Sent:* 15 March 2021 16:17
> *To:* Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; Rob
> Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>;
> janl@tail-f.com; warren@kumari.net; netconf@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8525 (6484)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:03 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:57:37AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> >
> > I'm wondering whether we should consider doing an RFC8525-bis document
> with the specific aim of addressing this?
> >
>
> This sounds like an overkill solution, an errata seems the way to
> handle a little bug fix like this. I very doubt this affects many
> implementations...
>
>
>
>
>
> I strongly object to the introduction of YET ANOTHER module revision for
> the YANG library,
>
> just to fix something that has no impact on any real tools.  Only the
> first revision-stmt actually
>
> matters, and that is correct in this case.
>
>
>
> This bug should be handled with a simple Errata correcting the revision
> history.
>
> The data string is clearly wrong and changing it has no impact at all on
>
> modules that import ietf-yang-library.
>
>
>
>
>
> /js
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>