Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-entity-07: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 1/11/2018 10:12 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:49:24AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
>> Will do.  As it happens, I always just look into the MIBs distributed
>> by libsmi, and it seems the MIB is not updated there ;-)
> OK. My fault.
>
>> Which leads
>> to an interesting issue - the errata for the MIB not only changes the
>> description in the comment, but it also changes the *value*.  I will
>> thus do the same in the YANG module:
>>
>>        enum peta {
>>          value 14;
>>          description
>>            "Data scaling factor of 10^15.";
>>        }
>>        enum exa {
>>          value 15;
>>          description
>>            "Data scaling factor of 10^18.";
>>        }
>>
>> This matches the verified MIB Errata, but since the original MIB is
>> probably present in most distributions, I wouldn't be surprised if
>> this object is not correctly implemented in real code...  When I
>> googled for the MIB I found several instances of NON-updated MIBs, and
>> zero instances of an updated MIB.
> Yes. This is very subtle. Not changing the value would also have been
> somewhat odd since tera and exa are then 'out of natural order'. But
> it might have been more robust. Anyway, the errata says what it says
> and all we can do now is likely to hope that people running into this
> at the end find the errata linked to the RFC. Hence, I will commit the
> errata fix to the libsmi repository now.
Exactly the discussion we've been having on the YANG doctor list.
"- errata on the YANG module inside a RFC: this is looking for troubles 
IMO."
Obviously the same applies for MIB modules.

Regards, Benoit

>
> /js
>