IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911)

William Lupton <wlupton@broadband-forum.org> Wed, 18 January 2017 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <wlupton@broadband-forum.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 2EC661293E1 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:57:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 XUPrO7lV_nx3 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:57:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E7BF127076 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:57:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668B41E565A; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:56:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id gIEYG-zGehyw; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.127] (host5-81-223-185.range5-81.btcentralplus.com [5.81.223.185]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B063F1E5656; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:56:47 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: William Lupton <wlupton@broadband-forum.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170118.145532.995038902796253716.mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:56:58 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FDDC20B9-705E-4BBE-B7CD-57C24672250C@broadband-forum.org>
References: <20170118114858.62A63B80FFD@rfc-editor.org> <20170118.145532.995038902796253716.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/UcU9KJFa-XwIykATRoerkyJR_rE>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 18 Jan 2017 14:57:02 -0000

Reading RFC 6020 there is no “Obsoleted by RFC 7950” or “Updated by RFC 7950”. I expect that this is technically correct but it means that anyone reading RFC 6020 will not be aware of the existence of RFC 7950 and YANG 1.1. This seems unfortunate. W.

> On 18 Jan 2017, at 13:55, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
...
> The solution moving forward is to use YANG 1.1.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email