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

Andy wrote:

> 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. 

I don't strongly object to making changes in YANG Library, but I think any changes on this fundamental level need to have substantial technical merit to warrant the cost.

> Only the first revision-stmt actually matters, and that is correct in this case.

If the import-by-revision-or-derived YANG extension proposed by the versioning dt is approved and published as RFC, the revision history will start to play a role in the interpretation of module contents. That may actually be an argument for correcting or reconciling the misrepresented date in the module at next the YANG Library change.

> On 15 Mar 2021, at 17:34, 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.

Now, that is a kind of change I would strongly object to.

/jan

>  
> 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 <mailto: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/ <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>