[netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8407 (7416)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 07 April 2023 12:50 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.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 66A9EC151B1A for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 05:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Vw4DKVzJ-Bq for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 05:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D2F3C1516EB for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 05:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 706ED7FDC0; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 05:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, andy@yumaworks.com, netmod@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230407125016.706ED7FDC0@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2023 05:50:16 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/jgv0wVwzkh69PeHn1zZWXGhS5Ig>
Subject: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8407 (7416)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 07 Apr 2023 12:50:20 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8407, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7416 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Section: 4.8 Original Text ------------- revision "2017-12-11" { description "Added support for YANG 1.1 actions and notifications tied to data nodes. Clarify how NACM extensions can be used by other data models."; reference "RFC 8407: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model"; } Corrected Text -------------- revision "2017-12-11" { description "Added support for YANG 1.1 actions and notifications tied to data nodes. Clarify how NACM extensions can be used by other data models."; reference "RFC UUUU: Network Configuration Access Control Model"; } Notes ----- This example is supposed to illustrate the use of revisions in unpublished updates. Having an RFC under the reference clause is inconsistent: o published: A stable release of a module or submodule. For example, the "Request for Comments" described in Section 2.1 of [RFC2026] is considered a stable publication. o unpublished: An unstable release of a module or submodule. For example the "Internet-Draft" described in Section 2.2 of [RFC2026] is considered an unstable publication that is a work in progress, subject to change at any time. I suspect that RFC XXXX in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis was erroneously replaced by RFC 8407: revision "2017-12-11" { description "Added support for YANG 1.1 actions and notifications tied to data nodes. Clarify how NACM extensions can be used by other data models."; reference "RFC XXXX: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model"; } Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8407 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20) -------------------------------------- Title : Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models Publication Date : October 2018 Author(s) : A. Bierman Category : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE Source : Network Modeling Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8407 (741… RFC Errata System
- Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8407 … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8407 … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8407 … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8407 … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8407 … Chris Smiley