Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8341 (6493)

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Fri, 02 April 2021 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <01000178932683b3-f9a114b8-b525-479e-b7f2-ff8300b32d14-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 C15583A19F0 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 08:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
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 y_AAbnsD23rr for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 08:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-83.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-83.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DEEC3A19EA for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 08:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1617376478; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=wUN6oDO+CqfCaLb8Zgq5jTv7pPlQzPlSkOFsT0wzYEo=; b=NGX3bdE40uB+sxIZ7bZDC2Zz9PNlIqq4uVP/CSXr4ylkrvfhmg4Y3Yj0zfBNOhCU nKW8RG+Rqi6QAaCot2mC12FIkNzLKf1kHJVwvdL3dHYMXNko3b+LzGBYcIv2OqCJgvi Lh+nQD9ZaJByfW6Hvi+SrQkokd7ewYomsVPLHxwM=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <01000178932683b3-f9a114b8-b525-479e-b7f2-ff8300b32d14-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_74BBF355-EE42-44D2-89D0-178E71C4B6C4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 15:14:38 +0000
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB4366E67DEA2E17B448DA339CB5629@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>, "andy@yumaworks.com" <andy@yumaworks.com>, "mbj@tail-f.com" <mbj@tail-f.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
References: <20210324151954.6A2C2F40739@rfc-editor.org> <20210324155608.upn2zjjutgobgtqa@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <MN2PR11MB4366E67DEA2E17B448DA339CB5629@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2021.04.02-54.240.8.83
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/TokEvkgKt6-yRqTLFPsI-RthGjA>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8341 (6493)
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: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 15:14:41 -0000

> I agree with Juergen that section 9.13.2 of RFC 7950 applies and hence my opinion is that this errata, against RFC 8341, should be rejected.

+1 (as contributor)


> However, I also think that RFC 7950 isn't as clear as it should be.  Given that there is an explicit ABNF construct for instance-identifier, I really think that this ABNF should explicitly require prefixes for node-identifiers, avoiding any potential ambiguity in what is allowed.

Should a YANG-next issue be filed?


K.