[netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 07 August 2020 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DE13A0B92 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 08:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Fz1pbk_-BeVO for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 08:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13F073A0B71 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 08:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 98486F4074B; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 08:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: lhotka@nic.cz, acee@cisco.com, yingzhen.qu@huawei.com, warren@kumari.net, rwilton@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, kent+ietf@watsen.net, lberger@labn.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: tsaad@juniper.net, netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20200807154534.98486F4074B@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 08:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/5BN8Y0jB79XxEwa0G9F_N6ylyhg>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 09:17:53 -0700
Subject: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 15:45:47 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8349,
"A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6251

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net>

Section: 7

Original Text
-------------
The RPC "active-route" is used to retrieve the active route in a RIB.
RFC8349 defined two AFIs (v4/v6).

draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang is defining a new RIB AFI for MPLS as per section 3 in RFC8349.

The RPC has a "MUST" statement that all RIBs must augment input
parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.

For MPLS RIB, it makes sense to augment with leaf named 'local-label' since MPLS routes are identified by MPLS label.

We ask to make the following change:

OLD:
           action active-route {
             description
               "Return the active RIB route that is used for the
                destination address.

                Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
                parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.";


Corrected Text
--------------
NEW:
           action active-route {
             description
               "Return the active RIB route that is used for the
                destination address.

                Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
                parameters with a suitable leaf that identifies the route.";


Notes
-----


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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC8349 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)
Publication Date    : March 2018
Author(s)           : L. Lhotka, A. Lindem, Y. Qu
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Network Modeling
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG