[netmod] [Errata Rejected] RFC6991 (7647)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 12 January 2024 14:45 UTC

To: david.martinezgarci@upm.es, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, iesg@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240112144508.5FBD21B65DC9@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 06:45:08 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/e3pAoy3YCeuDIePJuulQcn-qc0Y>
Subject: [netmod] [Errata Rejected] RFC6991 (7647)
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6991,
"Common YANG Data Types".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7647

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: David Martínez García <david.martinezgarci@upm.es>
Date Reported: 2023-09-18
Rejected by: Robert Wilton (IESG)

Section: 3

Original Text
-------------
[...]

typedef object-identifier-128 {
       type object-identifier {

[...]

(and other typedefs that appear in the latest revisions of the module)

Corrected Text
--------------
[...]

typedef object-identifier-128 {
       type yang:object-identifier {

[...]

(and other typedefs that appear in the latest revisions of the module)

Notes
-----
In Section 3, the textual definition of the "ietf-yang-types" module presents, in my opinion, inconsistencies when defining typedefs that point to other typedefs in the same module: sometimes the value for the "type" key contains the prefix of the module and sometimes not. Please, see the example attached. This can also be applied to other typedefs defined in the latest revisions of the module, such as "date-no-zone" and "time-no-zone". I think this should be addressed to provide clarification and consistency, and thus can be extended to other modules and the YANG standard as well. Thanks for your time.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
As discussed on the NETMOD mailing list.: This YANG isn't wrong, and generally I don't think that YANG modules use (or should use) prefixes for types defined in the same module that they are used.

I agree that there is some inconsistency in RFC 6991 in using the "yang:" prefix, but that has been fixed by the author for the next revision of this YANG module.

--------------------------------------
RFC6991 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-03)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Common YANG Data Types
Publication Date    : July 2013
Author(s)           : J. Schoenwaelder, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Network Modeling
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

[netmod] [Errata Rejected] RFC6991 (7647) RFC Errata System