Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8342 (5362)

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 17 May 2018 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
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 CA44212DA72 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2018 23:57:04 -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 quNE1WbPNTtC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2018 23:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7B91275F4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2018 23:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (h-80-27.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [212.85.80.27]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72FE81AE0286; Thu, 17 May 2018 08:57:01 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 08:57:00 +0200
Message-Id: <20180517.085700.255479251368623796.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: ibagdona@gmail.com
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, phil@juniper.net, kwatsen@juniper.net, rwilton@cisco.com, warren@kumari.net, joelja@bogus.com, lberger@labn.net, rohitrranade@huawei.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <d4e70ba2-34e0-0eab-7cd2-4c2783137f9e@gmail.com>
References: <20180517042534.5E4C7B813FA@rfc-editor.org> <d4e70ba2-34e0-0eab-7cd2-4c2783137f9e@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/DJS1UloWLR3qcEm01jZ2amaEwpU>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2018 04:45:06 -0700
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8342 (5362)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 17 May 2018 06:57:05 -0000

Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> Reading the text, this errata appears to be correct - the previous
> obsoleted versions had separate branches, not the new NMDA based ones.

I agree.

> Authors, would you object to this?

No, this errata should be accepted.

However, the Informative References section (10.2) also needs to be
updated.


/martin

> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Ignas
> 
> 
> 
> On 17/05/2018 05:25, RFC Errata System wrote:
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8342,
> > "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5362
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Editorial
> > Reported by: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
> >
> > Section: 2
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > The convention adopted by the interfaces
> >     data model [RFC8343] and the IP data model [RFC8344] was to use two
> >     separate branches rooted at the root of the data tree: one branch for
> >     configuration data objects and one branch for operational state data
> >     objects.
> >
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > The convention adopted by the interfaces
> >     data model [RFC7223] and the IP data model [RFC7277] was to use two
> >     separate branches rooted at the root of the data tree: one branch for
> >     configuration data objects and one branch for operational state data
> >     objects.
> >
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > The duplication of definition and separation of operational state data
> > and configuration data happened in RFC7223 and RFC7277. RFC8343 and
> > RFC8344 have corrected this using NMDA architecture
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC8342 (draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-10)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
> > Publication Date    : March 2018
> > Author(s) : M. Bjorklund, J. Schoenwaelder, P. Shafer, K. Watsen,
> > R. Wilton
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Network Modeling
> > Area                : Operations and Management
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
>