Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8342 (5514)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 05 October 2018 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 561E6130DF6 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 GhG7hQo4y6x3 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) (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 AB35F130E66 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw14.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.14]) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB0F418C9 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 06:14:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id 8P07gfk71vdTu8P07g2Sag; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 06:14:36 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=be1L/Ms/lDT3Kt8ZzRDLy2GWqEudRK6K7AcSkkuRtwc=; b=I4P1ZKgrKoNGWgCRFFcmIYfOU9 HaVjbmPdscKhiLBirzyPX8tY3YWVn2VQSuFc/5fo8Mmml19jSxh4XFKOlFRf8jrg7vF4KSjcuHLpO PzfyYSmh/avaYWvW7a6uV1cD5;
Received: from pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.106.211]:57682 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1g8P07-0047yk-Jc; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 06:14:35 -0600
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, mbj@tail-f.com, phil@juniper.net, kwatsen@juniper.net, rwilton@cisco.com, ibagdona@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net, joelja@bogus.com, rohitrranade@huawei.com, netmod@ietf.org
References: <20181005094808.A049EB800AE@rfc-editor.org> <20181005101427.bw7qo7ertxk2dj5d@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <1b34ccac-831f-505d-d40b-c21234efc475@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 08:14:33 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181005101427.bw7qo7ertxk2dj5d@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.106.211
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1g8P07-0047yk-Jc
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.106.211]:57682
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 10
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Org: HG=bhcustomer;ORG=bluehost;
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/LND5Zq9RF6OZM75WZq3zM4ys1pk>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 06:54:36 -0700
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8342 (5514)
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, 05 Oct 2018 12:33:36 -0000

Juergen,

     The document says what it says, i.e., "The origin for any top-level 
configuration data nodes must be specified."  Changes to this would 
require a BIS or an RFC that updates this document.

Lou


On 10/5/2018 6:14 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the authors have been discussing whether the top-level requirement is
> too strict but there has not been a clear conclusion yet I think. In
> the example, all nodes to have a defined origin and hence the origin
> at the root will have zero effect.
>
> /js
>
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 02:48:08AM -0700, 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/eid5514
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
>>
>> Section: C.1
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>     <system
>>         xmlns="urn:example:system"
>>         xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
>>
>>       <hostname or:origin="or:learned">bar.example.com</hostname>
>>
>>       <interface or:origin="or:intended">
>>         <name>eth0</name>
>>         <auto-negotiation>
>>           <enabled or:origin="or:default">true</enabled>
>>           <speed>1000</speed>
>>         </auto-negotiation>
>>         <speed>100</speed>
>>         <address>
>>           <ip>2001:db8::10</ip>
>>           <prefix-length>64</prefix-length>
>>         </address>
>>         <address or:origin="or:learned">
>>           <ip>2001:db8::1:100</ip>
>>           <prefix-length>64</prefix-length>
>>         </address>
>>       </interface>
>>
>>       <interface or:origin="or:system">
>>         <name>lo0</name>
>>         <address>
>>           <ip>::1</ip>
>>           <prefix-length>128</prefix-length>
>>         </address>
>>       </interface>
>>
>>     </system>
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>     <system
>>         xmlns="urn:example:system"
>>         xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
>>         or:origin="or:intended">
>>
>>       <hostname or:origin="or:learned">bar.example.com</hostname>
>>
>>       <interface or:origin="or:intended">
>>         <name>eth0</name>
>>         <auto-negotiation>
>>           <enabled or:origin="or:default">true</enabled>
>>           <speed>1000</speed>
>>         </auto-negotiation>
>>         <speed>100</speed>
>>         <address>
>>           <ip>2001:db8::10</ip>
>>           <prefix-length>64</prefix-length>
>>         </address>
>>         <address or:origin="or:learned">
>>           <ip>2001:db8::1:100</ip>
>>           <prefix-length>64</prefix-length>
>>         </address>
>>       </interface>
>>
>>       <interface or:origin="or:system">
>>         <name>lo0</name>
>>         <address>
>>           <ip>::1</ip>
>>           <prefix-length>128</prefix-length>
>>         </address>
>>       </interface>
>>
>>     </system>
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> There was no "origin" attribute to the "system" top-level container, though it is a configuration node.
>> As per the extension definition "The origin for any top-level configuration data nodes must be specified."
>>
>> To choose an extension for top-level container in such cases, I would prefer one of the origin of its children and used "intended". , instead of "unknown".
>>
>> This has already been discussed in the mail chain, but also mentioned here to help readers in future.
>>
>> 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