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

Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Mon, 15 March 2021 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
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 89DD53A0BD5 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 03:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.121 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, PDS_NAKED_TO_NUMERO=1.999, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b=DdQ3Ieys; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=XocDS99h
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 8FtRB5HJRLpG for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76CDE3A0BCE for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71AE180E; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 06:46:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 15 Mar 2021 06:46:35 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=date :message-id:to:cc:subject:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh= PdUzNJYEcbWWY1pKgcgKvf7WWFKB6Wv+3PY4pAHMLTo=; b=DdQ3IeysLH/CoC1t 6JWB/y91NvY61/sXcM3T5QDvmksxYcxA0zkBPTOYq3yJv93s8nGViVdOXEBybg1q 86XqBgWkVMlH0PQzidL88pyN6k2ruB1FQKs/YGiDJ+MFsKsDJJiTtPxiH++WPGnt HlY+1g9Di/d7ZoLpZnst6WQV2PHBeAF8k+3hIUER5f5zKoX0SniXnL7lpsR97WMh LFX2R2owkXqmUBo7wR42wejYvNyVJ4YQ0tLTw0BcY0nyF/mygdFva/hLJ9QiVMsl 3PBh6FSzd5RiljnUFmodwMYF16/Gz7j9Kyp4epczXlXgg5a0YwALyaM14LHcM610 ME0COw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=PdUzNJYEcbWWY1pKgcgKvf7WWFKB6Wv+3PY4pAHML To=; b=XocDS99hobomiGejIdweIaKszPzaSM38UnMXopYRJiv7ZjBFoRYRBIsx1 ZeuKFyVsWnyBv5Gcpf1oW7DOzQ1uAPrOV3X/itlLGxrJEsz3OgYZ00EUqr8renpi dypu2GqYNF68QQTDuEoOoBx7cdOHVYZLSKDWwMfTxNYcNPEfusPjbCVQGxaR0pFL nDhDLYkyJ78F87cnA/4lKJ39nVFwCMdWNuYSRRv1i7IN03DNfJkouryIr7ddzjrJ ppsQhUB2OWgKMAiLmT9Jku25dnMPFub1ww0qWyfb0UftmxsiQch8KVDxPlOAzjKl kWQfdE890B6GQL9rRsY8ngtfUCISg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:CDtPYAuajUB1QfTXsJm_zHgE8_VCjsCmMLYuUKMZsjboy1FF6ziOHQ> <xme:CDtPYNeUyojNdkYs7xWryw-x2SVJeIeRne4MEoPkxErQASk1G-Kvp5VQPDKat_6lL W1WfW9N9xWD8i-3yhU>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledruddvledgudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffkffvuffhjghfofggtgfgsehtqh ertdertddunecuhfhrohhmpeforghrthhinhcuuehjnphrkhhluhhnugcuoehmsghjodhi vghtfhesgeeiieekrdhsvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepiedttefhtdfhkeetleetke evieefhfduudeukedvfeelgedtveeggfetfeejgfelnecukfhppeduheekrddujeegrdeg rddvudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epmhgsjhdoihgvthhfseegieeikedrshgv
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:CDtPYLzhjt-b-j-x4q3fRqAmTC9PCHXlnMFFjQm1hMAs8wwy4KtWig> <xmx:CDtPYDNx2PS-jthGyDDFzvocH1z8r4rZtFfvH6H5h-AQkOq48yzrCw> <xmx:CDtPYA_JI4fMalIbybK_3-qDKaJbFfLmgvMtRDc2FMjbRZ7NJ_HV1w> <xmx:CjtPYCJJc8IpZENnWwsikE9HmMofwvbEJnwax8KmUJoy7zyh_3MLQQ>
Received: from localhost (unknown [158.174.4.215]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 731CF24005B; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 06:46:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 11:46:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20210315.114630.905811507297421433.id@4668.se>
To: janl@tail-f.com
Cc: rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, netconf@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net
From: Martin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rklund?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <E2DEF87C-F637-4FC6-9D03-47FA73197806@tail-f.com>
References: <608B4604-1970-4BE3-85E5-565985A4EBF6@tail-f.com> <20210315.111826.1844702859879595481.id@4668.se> <E2DEF87C-F637-4FC6-9D03-47FA73197806@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ywGrcjdy6ubujZalDrHn3mspzFI>
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 10:46:40 -0000

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".

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...)



/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
> >>> 
> >> 
>