Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5784)

Per Hedeland <per@hedeland.org> Wed, 17 July 2019 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <per@hedeland.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 89CC61201E8 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outbound.mailhop.org
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 0c7N9hwiNook for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound1p.ore.mailhop.org (outbound1p.ore.mailhop.org [54.149.210.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D190B120159 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1563370168; cv=none; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=arc-outbound20181012; b=R8VTtHuLoSlFKHgqMVpLFOiiIOctUPXFnUdOw+UpW3dBc8rcoE/3VjAECjYTXSuel9zMFpq1uaKO8 2F1MWWrksTHGNHVRvzhixWqrMU1r/Bpt9lrXENwsaB0hbxX0bsNNHoQROtAzW9KGVMdhhAFlNgfd+W Zx4mZfAfiUUSXiJZ5dk88NPK69eGFcIgCn2bSsi0Og/3Syq0usaYBcyd4y0ujcvYqLFGNkW7hTUbyT ISTTPOjGPkkLTlzxOJfnohg93becX3u64wTVtCdOvsKGCCfL2sdjq4acy1mcshSdsz7c33k9393OBz EeDC5zUtxKDa+B597DBs/NOFRrvyb1A==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=arc-outbound20181012; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:mime-version:date: message-id:from:cc:references:to:subject:dkim-signature:from; bh=0KvwGlcsLMkhbh6SO+J5ruyuZ3MRWEPS/IwOlgKhHvI=; b=Q7hzu0s7StpoAIblklgiKnVt1ORZwbjiz0UAfgPC4VEB7IJF62mK5/Q1SyJTlR7Imoiq4+sVyrNQ5 Z9gb/e5B2voukBa3U2jM1RXlecb4A+5UmrN5/1l4yjMfSqNKXv3yXPIwRj0beWsAAo/VtmOdoXeMJ5 WL8ptjwEtGuIpZfTf6RNblN1CkduKgId1PMhnOJqDmjyFadNVw4YjaW9c/sjcRVBlVl9SEaUpQrGlS wQY16YeERKlXiGXQ88Am0OVNCRL3jGUsZGzl15reciZUg9SBYDPHKkpgkKYyk9meBkGUnX6RbDQ68R pqjWLI6b5hRI7dSgS/SGq7Ix4EBvBcA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; outbound3.ore.mailhop.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=hedeland.org smtp.remote-ip=81.228.157.209; dmarc=none header.from=hedeland.org; arc=none header.oldest-pass=0;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=dkim-high; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:mime-version:date: message-id:from:cc:references:to:subject:from; bh=0KvwGlcsLMkhbh6SO+J5ruyuZ3MRWEPS/IwOlgKhHvI=; b=V0XJrC9fqackcKfI2PMIxNqT9UQjtibB8WtikCUsPNoiF0q5ai0SrW5wauA6hJbbeig57Tj08SV6b xXRxphjHCTR1CGpjxuK9qpw2C8Uh9zcoMP3oJOO+qjcjlPaGMXEyX8sseMLA4Q+u55OsEO+riXH//6 7/m48MwF84wIKb+0kz7MPIW9XJ+dduY4oHQbLKqp4MAQdxmONiJsI8W/G6P1pkZnvtMVNOVzdXyF1Z bwHXm03lYdtaaOsHlEhzRF0SuE8dwg3jIl4KCdDu6SInwd6Sb+Jfaygfxb5KMpsGlRbyFBYp4bWgpi jk4Z61Uudn3Yfj0X0f+442o69md/ugw==
X-MHO-RoutePath: cGVyaGVkZWxhbmQ=
X-MHO-User: e36f5ee9-a896-11e9-9d30-d9f4e14f47a7
X-Report-Abuse-To: https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information
X-Originating-IP: 81.228.157.209
X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP
Received: from hedeland.org (unknown [81.228.157.209]) by outbound3.ore.mailhop.org (Halon) with ESMTPSA id e36f5ee9-a896-11e9-9d30-d9f4e14f47a7; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:29:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pluto.hedeland.org (pluto.hedeland.org [10.1.1.5]) by tellus.hedeland.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x6HDTKWO015998 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:29:21 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from per@hedeland.org)
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA4A00C4B@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com> <20190717123439.fg2j56mzkj36yuh3@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Cc: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, "ibagdona@gmail.com" <ibagdona@gmail.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
From: Per Hedeland <per@hedeland.org>
Message-ID: <5c18f238-fdc7-98af-36ac-4f9784663bd7@hedeland.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:29:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190717123439.fg2j56mzkj36yuh3@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IVDqR2sYiDhp0odm-heyI73bq7U>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5784)
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: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:29:31 -0000

On 2019-07-17 14:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Its the first half of the sentence in my copy of RFC 7950.

It believe that there is a problem with English language both in Qin's
understanding of the original text (which is correct also in my
opinion) and in his explanation of his (mis)understanding...

> I propose to reject this errata.

I agree, in particular since the suggested change is IMHO no actual
improvement. It seems the problem is in understanding the "subject to"
construct, which is perhaps not obvious to *all* non-native English
readers, but I can't think of a replacement that wouldn't result in an
unecessarily complex text.

> /js
> 
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:02:21PM +0000, Qin Wu wrote:
>> Hi, Juergen and Rob:
>> The condition to apply " Leading and trailing zeros are prohibited ",is the second half sentence, i.e.,"there MUST be at least one digit before and after the decimal point".

It seems that you have it almost backwards... "The rule is A subject
to the rule B" means that rule A should be applied, except when it
will violate rule B.

>> One digit before the decimal point and one digit after the decimal point at the same time cover 0.5000000?, I still don't get it.

It's a very good example. With unconditional application of "Leading
and trailing zeros are prohibited", we end up with .5 - but then we
violate "there MUST be at least one digit before and after the decimal
point", so we need to back out the removal of the leading zero, and
end up with 0.5.

>> Maybe I am wrong, but this is not a big deal.

Hopefully the above helps...

--Per

>> -Qin
>> -----®öŸö-----
>> Ñöº: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de]
>> Ñöô: 2019t717å 18:29
>> 6öº: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
>> „: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>om>; ibagdona@gmail.com; warren@kumari.net; netmod@ietf.org; RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>> ;˜: Re: [netmod] RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5784)
>>
>> The text starts with the general case and says "Leading and trailing zeros are prohibited", which seems to cover 0.50000000 (which must be represented as 0.5.
>>
>> /js
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 09:42:38AM +0000, Qin Wu wrote:
>>> I realized my proposed changes also have some flaw and may need to be tweaked.
>>>
>>> My question is should trailing zeros in 0.50000 be allowed? I didnt see the original text prohibit this.
>>> Yes, the original text is correct, but it excludes some exception cases, such as 0.500000000, if my understanding is correct.
>>> Ñöº: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwilton@cisco.com]
>>> Ñöô: 2019t717å 17:20
>>> 6öº: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>om>; Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
>>> „: ibagdona@gmail.com; warren@kumari.net; netmod@ietf.org; RFC Errata
>>> System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>>> ;˜: RE: [netmod] T
: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5784)
>>>
>>> Hi Qin,
>>>
>>> I also find the current RFC text quite understandable and correct.
>>>
>>> The and is required to disallow .0 and 0. as valid canonical forms.  I.e. in the canonical form there MUST always be at least one digit (which could be 0) before the decimal point and then must be at least one digit (which could be 0) after the decimal point.  Otherwise, there must be no leading or trailing 0s.  So, none of  .0, 0., 00.0, 0.00 and 00.00 are in the canonical form, and should be represented as 0.0 instead; similarly none of .1, 1., 01.0, 1.00 and 01.00 are in the canonical form and should be represented as 1.0 instead.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org>>
>>> On Behalf Of Qin Wu
>>> Sent: 17 July 2019 09:59
>>> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de<mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-un
>>> iversity.de>>
>>> Cc: ibagdona@gmail.com<mailto:ibagdona@gmail.com>;
>>> warren@kumari.net<mailto:warren@kumari.net>;
>>> netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>; RFC Errata System
>>> <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>>
>>> Subject: [netmod] T
: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5784)
>>>
>>>
>>> Understand, the problem lies at "and" that is used in " one digit before and after the decimal point ", that is to say it only focus on the case that has two digits, one is before decimal point, the other digit is after decimal such as "5.06", but doesn't cover the case where "one digit before or after the decimal point ", thats why I think the case 0.500000 is not covered. We should prohibit trailing zeros in 0.5000000.
>>>
>>> -----®öŸö-----
>>> Ñöº: Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de]
>>> Ñöô: 2019t717å 16:46
>>> 6öº: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>>
>>> „: RFC Errata System
>>> <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>>;
>>> ibagdona@gmail.com<mailto:ibagdona@gmail.com>;
>>> netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>;
>>> warren@kumari.net<mailto:warren@kumari.net>
>>> ;˜: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5784)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The text starts with the general case and says "Leading and trailing zeros are prohibited", which seems to cover 0.50000000. The text then handles the special rule that there needs to be at least one digit before and after the decimal point. I think all is fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> /js
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:11:41AM +0000, Qin Wu wrote:
>>>
>>>> What about "0.50000000"? based on original text, is it legal or illegal?
>>>
>>>> It seem original text exclude the case where one digit before or after the decimal point?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> -Qin
>>>
>>>> -----®öŸö-----
>>>
>>>> Ñöº: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] ãh Juergen
>>>> Schoenwaelder
>>>
>>>> Ñöô: 2019t717å 15:50
>>>
>>>> 6öº: RFC Errata System
>>>> <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>>
>>>
>>>> „: ibagdona@gmail.com<mailto:ibagdona@gmail.com>;
>>>> netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>;
>>>> warren@kumari.net<mailto:warren@kumari.net>
>>>
>>>> ;˜: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5784)
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I do not see why the original text makes 0.5 or 0.0 illegal.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> /js
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 08:52:52PM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950, "The
>>>
>>>>> YANG
>>>
>>>>> 1.1 Data Modeling Language".
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5784
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>> Type: Technical
>>>
>>>>> Reported by: Qin WU
>>>>> <bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Section: 9.3.2
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Original Text
>>>
>>>>> -------------
>>>
>>>>> Leading and trailing zeros are prohibited, subject to the rule
>>>>> that
>>>
>>>>> there MUST be at least one digit before and after the decimal point.
>>>
>>>>> The value zero is represented as "0.0".
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Corrected Text
>>>
>>>>> --------------
>>>
>>>>> Leading zeros before the first digit and trailing zeros after the
>>>
>>>>> last digit are prohibited, subject to the rule that there MUST be
>>>>> at
>>>
>>>>> least one digit before and after the decimal point.  The value
>>>>> zero
>>>
>>>>> is represented as "0.0".
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Notes
>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>
>>>>> Based on the rule in the orginal text, the value such as "0.5","0.0" is illegal. So I think the intention of the original text is to make sure the leading zeros before the first digit and the trailing zero after the last digit are prohibited.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>> RFC7950 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14)
>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>> Title               : The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language
>>>
>>>>> Publication Date    : August 2016
>>>
>>>>> Author(s)           : M. Bjorklund, Ed.
>>>
>>>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>>
>>>>> Source              : Network Modeling
>>>
>>>>> Area                : Operations and Management
>>>
>>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>
>>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>
>>>>> netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
>>>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>> 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/>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>
>>>> netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
>>>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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/>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/>
>