[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