Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6991 (5105)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 9/4/2017 10:12 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder píše v Pá 01. 09. 2017 v 18:48 +0200:
>> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:40:56AM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6991,
>>> "Common YANG Data Types".
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5105
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Technical
>>> Reported by: Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> Section: 3
>>>
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>> A schema node of this type will be set to zero (0) on creation
>>> and will thereafter increase monotonically until it reaches
>>> a maximum value of 2^32-1 (4294967295 decimal), when it
>>> wraps around and starts increasing again from zero.
>>>
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>> A leaf instance of this type will be set to zero (0) on creation
>>> and will thereafter increase monotonically until it reaches
>>> a maximum value of 2^32-1 (4294967295 decimal), when it
>>> wraps around and starts increasing again from zero.
>>>
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>> In a number of descriptions in both ietf-yang-types and ietf-inet-types, the term "schema node" is used incorrectly in places where "leaf instance" or "instance of a leaf" should be used instead. However, not all occurences of "schema node" are wrong: schema nodes just have to be distinguished from nodes in an instance data tree.
>>>
>> Yes. I would probably prefer 'a data node instance of this type'
>> instead of 'a leaf instance' - I am not sure I would to exclude a
>> leaf-list and who knows whether we have any other data nodes in the
>> future. And yes, all occurances of 'schema node' need careful
> OK.
>
>> inspection. I am not sure whether you want to identify all occurances
>> now or whether you wanted to have a generic errata just so that we do
>> not forget to fix this when this document is revised.
> I think it should suffice to keep this general erratum and fixed it in the next
> revision.
Just flagged as such in the system.

Regards, Benoit
>
> Thanks, Lada
>
>> /js
>>