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

Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si> Mon, 15 March 2021 12:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAEEF3A0E4A for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 05:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mg-soft.si
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dhm7IqZaLTcq for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 05:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from galileo.mg-soft.si (gate.mg-soft.si [212.30.73.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256693A0E14 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 05:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (teleport2.mg-soft.si [10.0.0.254]) by galileo.mg-soft.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CEAC4175C6; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:01:55 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 galileo.mg-soft.si 35CEAC4175C6
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg-soft.si; s=default; t=1615809715; bh=f7vEPU/V7UFUPw59cuZ5YCJ271LxE7YK8keOqQU01B0=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=I1Ppq8nTe0XqoTvMQHjKm8JPvXfGd6xGDQeyCOGLn6YjlQlBm9R/lCdgMhxKD+J0X 7d73n0cQV8rpU3rkOnQgNovH0z5bql28O1bUlYAgUoZ5/vAlovv/7cCpXLxMBykioV i3kk1yvP9qj5P2QNGe87O+tH+4S1llC7LPmT+8BVPIY0q2WMUP9vLFtY6G/jGAzLRS Qj4eaAaNkrxTn7PdonwS60C1JdpTNrHdbKpEzXmE5YaD/26KvVS/sQOnPr4WOwJV2Y mKd+kMwZwQmuXrlzCYZEIWeQtjVJ93wq5gddbzgN4LNwWC+5+d50EzUHLfjBDH6FZF h7QJbRaTIe+nQ==
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Bj=c3=b6rklund?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>, janl@tail-f.com
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, warren@kumari.net, netconf@ietf.org, rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
References: <608B4604-1970-4BE3-85E5-565985A4EBF6@tail-f.com> <20210315.111826.1844702859879595481.id@4668.se> <E2DEF87C-F637-4FC6-9D03-47FA73197806@tail-f.com> <20210315.114630.905811507297421433.id@4668.se>
From: Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si>
Message-ID: <7ae38c9c-7dea-fbc0-ac1c-65fb2a4ffd0b@mg-soft.si>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:01:54 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210315.114630.905811507297421433.id@4668.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/OJwRnDSxyEUPDjn2xijkcmNSrIo>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8525 (6484)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:02:04 -0000

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>om>; 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