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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 11 January 2018 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 80F1C12EAE6; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 03:04:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 4HfbcW0Jw_2G; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 03:04:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F37C212EAE5; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 03:04:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1715; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515668643; x=1516878243; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HEa2J02e+bnUg5MKa/LyUOQkDnmkTLf3eaMSbhrDjb0=; b=IazkjRauRNL9iErviSXnnICDxXU0TxzB4efdO2YlBBj/Zu8dULtS69fs Wr9JFpTSlENSUYdrfNjUZaDurLozzsL7X4hLYIBS2KXA7ApcDi1xYnVJ/ LiTGFLroIqxEGmQiNmAHmCwNO7MT7wy9Bz0GkMyGcvnctA+3caIBRZXV2 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ByAQAhRFda/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYUbhC6LGI9smUYKhTsChQ0UAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFJAEFIxVRCw4?= =?us-ascii?q?KAgImAgJXBgEMCAEBii+wF4InijoBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBASKBD4Mcg2yCEgyCe?= =?us-ascii?q?Yg5gmUBBKNkjAGJRowjh2uPG4gJgTw2IoFQMhoIGxU9giuDCIFPQIwXAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,344,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="1343576"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jan 2018 11:04:01 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0BB4004003599; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:04:00 GMT
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, adam@nostrum.com, iesg@ietf.org, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-entity@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
References: <151565374680.30635.814396227713285360.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20180111071317.wvqyyufx4bkyz5pi@elstar.local> <20180111.094924.121178859287289476.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180111091259.72vv7vs35jlqm4so@elstar.local>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <ad6a92ba-5804-ac3e-b871-79cc081d20a2@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:04:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180111091259.72vv7vs35jlqm4so@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Y51-gj61U6PT5Xbr8vzi_SZX8w0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-entity-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:04:05 -0000

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
>