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

Hi,

On 15/03/2021 11:46, Martin Björklund wrote:
> Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com> wrote:
>> Martin,
>>
>>>> Rob, Martin,
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't changing the revision date be a massively
>>>> non-backwards-compatible change?
>>> Note that this is in the revision history list.
>> I understand. Do you consider changing the revision history a
>> backwards compatible change that clients, servers and tools should
>> reasonably be able to cope with?
> Today we have:
>
>    ietf-yang-library@2016-06-21:
>       revision 2016-06-21 {
>         description
>           "Initial revision.";
>       }
>
>    ietf-yang-library@2019-01-04
>       revision 2019-01-04 {
>         description { ... }
>       }
>       revision 2016-04-09 {
>         description
>           "Initial revision.";
>       }
>
>
> I don't expect any tool to be able to cope with this in any meaningful
> way.  The only reason we haven't seen this before is that tools don't
> try to use "2016-04-09".

In this instance, the tool that tried to use "2016-04-09" was me, just 
to clear any potential doubts. Copied it verbatim from that revision 
history, then had tests inexplicably failing because of it.

>
> So yes, I think it is ok to do:
>
>    ietf-yang-library@202X-XX-XX
>       revision 202X-XX-XX {
>         description { ... }
>       }
>       revision 2019-01-04 {
>         description { ... }
>       }
>       revision 2016-06-21 {
>         description
>           "Initial revision.";
>       }
>
> (actually, not just "ok", but the right thing to do...)
>

+1

Jernej

>
> /martin
>
>
>>>> Anyone might be importing this module by revision, and tools could be
>>>> hardcoded towards the revision date, given that this is a pretty
>>>> fundamental module.
>>>>
>>>> What is the (technical) benefit of changing the date?
>>> The idea is that if we ever do a new version of this module, we fix
>>> the revision history list in that new version.
>> Yes, the description of the idea was clear. I see some potential
>> trouble doing this, and so far I haven't been able to think of any use
>> case that would benefit from a change. Is there any?
>>
>> Correct information is always nice, but changing module identification
>> data also leads to confusion. I don't think we should change it unless
>> someone can point to some benefits that outweigh the cost.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> /jan
>>
>>
>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, hold for doc update seems appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any other comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
>>>>>> Sent: 15 March 2021 09:24
>>>>>> To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>>>>>> Cc: andy@yumaworks.com; mbj+ietf@4668.se; j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
>>>>>> university.de; kent+ietf@watsen.net; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
>>>>>> <rwilton@cisco.com>; warren@kumari.net; mjethanandani@gmail.com;
>>>>>> netconf@ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8525 (6484)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, this is obviously a bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure it can be fixed with an errata however.  Perhaps "hold
>>>>>> for document update"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8525,
>>>>>>> "YANG Library".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6484
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Type: Technical
>>>>>>> Reported by: Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Section: 4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original Text
>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>     revision 2016-04-09 {
>>>>>>>       description
>>>>>>>         "Initial revision.";
>>>>>>>       reference
>>>>>>>         "RFC 7895: YANG Module Library";
>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corrected Text
>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>>     revision 2016-06-21 {
>>>>>>>       description
>>>>>>>         "Initial revision.";
>>>>>>>       reference
>>>>>>>         "RFC 7895: YANG Module Library";
>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notes
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>> Initial revision of ietf-yang-library YANG module was 2016-06-21, not
>>>>>> 2016-04-09.
>>>>>>> Instructions:
>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>>>>>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>>>>>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>>>>>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>> RFC8525 (draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-07)
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Title               : YANG Library
>>>>>>> Publication Date    : March 2019
>>>>>>> Author(s)           : A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund, J. Schoenwaelder, K.
>>>>>> Watsen, R. Wilton
>>>>>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>>>>>> Source              : Network Configuration
>>>>>>> Area                : Operations and Management
>>>>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> netconf mailing list
>>>>>>> netconf@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netconf mailing list
>>>>> netconf@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf