Re: [netmod] [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Fri, 14 August 2020 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@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 A23933A0F85; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=UPtGq51P; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=c03bNFMi
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 It7JZC3gYexT; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B5063A0F56; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=25876; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1597426693; x=1598636293; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FTgVZVb7924P87PqKVOwx9XWARiuETcYGu86bnGn2gs=; b=UPtGq51PPTtFSz4vySdd4G+Y6BAN03dSx/Y93zhX4sXyzywdhY9EIEEE lz8D81+673fmji3tZ7TQQwzZXwDnrCBJ8MzGWh4a0fdF2EloM3L7j6H8S J7UXrnpSoNBWCQDThWK7RIVDwKDljIGDI9d92A4m7OkG7T+dpkt1+qhwu c=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3ACvKGfxfTzIM/AZObbLySLEBalGMj4e+mNxMJ6p?= =?us-ascii?q?chl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwaQAdfU7vtFj6zdtKWzEWAD4JPUtncEfdQMUh?= =?us-ascii?q?IekswZkkQmB9LNEkz0KvPmLklYVMRPXVNo5Te3ZE5SHsutaFjbo3n05jkXSV?= =?us-ascii?q?3zMANvLbHzHYjfx828y+G1/cjVZANFzDqwaL9/NlO4twLU48IXmoBlbK02z0?= =?us-ascii?q?jE?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D3AQA8yzZf/5NdJa1eHQEBAQEJARI?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQUBQIE5BQELAYFRKSgHcFgvLAqELYNGA41UigiOX4FCgREDVQsBAQEMAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?YDQgCBAEBhAhEAheCMAIkNwYOAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVcDIVxAQEBBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BEBERDAEBLAsBCwQCAQgOAwQBAQECAiYCAgIfBgsVCAgCBAENBQgTB4MFgks?= =?us-ascii?q?DLgEDC6gAAoE5iGF2gTKDAQEBBYUgDQuCDgmBDioBgnCDYII+hA4agUE/gRF?= =?us-ascii?q?Dgk0+gQSBFkIBAQKBKAEMBgEHHIMVM4Itj2gQF4J0hweCeYgLMpAhUQqCYoh?= =?us-ascii?q?jjD2FIIJ/gSOIOIgsixmSOIFsiFaCZY1phCwCBAIEBQIOAQEFgWkkZ3BwFRo?= =?us-ascii?q?hgmkJRxcCDY4fDBeBAgEBCYJBhFk7hQkBNwF0AjUCBgEJAQEDCXyNYYE0AYE?= =?us-ascii?q?QAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,313,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="801547484"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 14 Aug 2020 17:38:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07EHcB1b032697 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 17:38:11 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 12:38:11 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:38:10 -0400
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 12:38:09 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=aU3oZul+opuzOXeTUtYibfUySMpWu5uKSLLu0iYpFOQV0HdjQUzi60mcsEuiSQDMtAu6S963rlBGiQt7AsTD8VAd8eQvu6BvulbRKNBjBauqNziBqMu2b40/kJ3TOMZdugmi9xAqosGFw2Q5yFiVmi0eF6OgoX6RiQWQW/xOboevLtc0+FW/Cocuyg9UA8stUp2Kj5QChfdo1AndrSnkZ8epIlpA4ShK8A9nsTGJslignQbCE4xfJTp5QkPjaowjRPkwqBttYAXl7cscmbAtJFk+ShcHVoLwyE2Qptrwalt+3XGtqcJZUe+ButOZBVl09pBviGyUnJsuOR6od4mdww==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=FTgVZVb7924P87PqKVOwx9XWARiuETcYGu86bnGn2gs=; b=aepfzOkLUrO7N+8U10PhwdGU3YqVWUwx7yuSIF49bCxoQyGGHD6s8/ZVk8sGthitQWqsZVTcBXqt91IG0pzPUE/Z8TNx201CzkirDTBZStpQCbCLz7mc4Sg3IoymZzEZRxWMi5L6hubB35gFjIlUjgL9cxKnZfB3Ma1n3QbE+ZWSrJegpkdwXydtjAJciWmLNobzezukevXG4o7pFuvNkGB5hil0VGM+CUDrMsSYi3zACGWEak84KHxIr8f124Q8Vbh/ESCNxVqjQH4v68au7vnvBRsUFYMlzItnHt358fL9dYCN7Wsf7Y6oAronDu/9oVozCNIUf/t8wxNvs3rmtg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=FTgVZVb7924P87PqKVOwx9XWARiuETcYGu86bnGn2gs=; b=c03bNFMi8g2HKhQLhduh+t13OrcVDIWuhuSLl9156nqJlIR6xfrJt1x0uCZx7HmJHRQUOeldcyvPmNFcMJXV4RFt+IVJn0qA78qw/ZSSG6WwjOUopIZIg6pobEoNvfBMT5GrjvJkEoQVSBthI/R+1QFs94gWjEatjyrWo/qkKfg=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:190::17) by BL0PR11MB3250.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:63::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3283.15; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 17:38:04 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4d3f:f3e:add7:dfc1]) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4d3f:f3e:add7:dfc1%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3261.025; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 17:38:04 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "lhotka@nic.cz" <lhotka@nic.cz>, "yingzhen.qu@huawei.com" <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>
CC: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
Thread-Index: AQHWclgCPYxsuyrUxEGu5AtxD3hO8qk3y7kAgAASW+A=
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 17:38:04 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB436634C0D2745EB5ED6E00D5B5400@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AABAB849-3792-41AE-928B-3D72F843DBF6@cisco.com> <DM5PR1901MB21506A86E97321388872F0A3FC400@DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR1901MB21506A86E97321388872F0A3FC400@DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [82.15.79.32]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3b88cfe2-9e8c-4f1c-61bf-08d84078cc93
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR11MB3250:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL0PR11MB325077978B42DA506853FEE8B5400@BL0PR11MB3250.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 82JHleiekqOcunBJNy9kST/8lMXV6ZkDlbNy0XTBnp52OB+kjAC8IQj31n6THIcfmGU/kqAed8qexdbfMa5aSzSkblvLtbfy34tjOkGsRHg3jTz43h/lUCv1arDLmNb6/f8gNAFa8SYqADIYnB4Ha3sAdqeJSlEw8mxxUWpAetkqnQ+4BLNsBx924Vkk32UETb6k2GyBgNHZEw2fUZO+uPxe8KsmVzv2rWZjVRc5JBVXcXo0zNNOyBFJm/sS6FNS0/spvD2WVmJ6+ILusJ8LyN0W9+qDiT1w/jhPvbN7tDnZwWqW3mISjoQA239YbsdEElyYjqDFYFq6AEbJHEpNqG1zMecU2+53J/S6z+YPORhVo5Zr/adzYYmXrYDJl+wexcQnHP1gARJ5+OYnNf4NVg==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(376002)(346002)(396003)(136003)(366004)(39860400002)(30864003)(7696005)(186003)(26005)(6506007)(52536014)(53546011)(966005)(2906002)(5660300002)(54906003)(86362001)(316002)(110136005)(7416002)(478600001)(71200400001)(83380400001)(8936002)(33656002)(76116006)(66556008)(66476007)(66946007)(4326008)(64756008)(66446008)(8676002)(9686003)(55016002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3b88cfe2-9e8c-4f1c-61bf-08d84078cc93
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Aug 2020 17:38:04.3890 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: mn51vdJgupZrIclorxSkjtPpfa4RZ3S5FxOOqdt9KQNcer2i0lmdV+Gjt/ia3K42s/RjMzKrWaKFELTUzByxTw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL0PR11MB3250
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/plzShPR91n6XqMtbSO_7EvNu8PQ>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:30:45 -0700
Subject: Re: [netmod] [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 14 Aug 2020 17:38:23 -0000

Hi Acee, Tarek, Tom,

Thank for all for your time and help in resolving this issue.

I will reject the erratum.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
> Sent: 14 August 2020 17:30
> To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; Tarek Saad
> <tsaad@juniper.net>et>; tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>om>; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> <rwilton@cisco.com>om>; RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>rg>;
> lhotka@nic.cz; yingzhen.qu@huawei.com; warren@kumari.net
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; netconf-chairs@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
> mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
> 
> Thanks Acee. Yes, will do in the next rev we'll push soon.
> 
> Regards,
> Tarek
> 
> On 8/14/20, 12:29 PM, "mpls on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <mpls-
> bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Tarek,
>     Can you also add the description of the native MPLS RIB to the text?
>     Thanks,
>     Acee
> 
>     On 8/14/20, 12:27 PM, "mpls on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <mpls-
> bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>         Hi Tarek,
>         This works for me.
>         Thanks,
>         Acee
> 
>         On 8/14/20, 12:25 PM, "Tarek Saad" <tsaad@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
>             Hi Acee and Tom,
> 
>             The authors of ID: draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang met and we
> discussed the points below.
>             We understand that RFC8349 defines an AF-agnostic model for
> RIBs. RFC8349 defined only two types of RIBs (IPv4 and IPv6 RIBs), but we
> envision other types of RIBs too (e.g. L2 RIB, MCAST RIB, etc.), in
> addition to MPLS RIB -- and we hope all such RIBs indeed leverage the
> generic RIB model introduced in RFC8349.
> 
>             We revisited Acee's suggestion and made a small modification
> (on top of it) that makes IP routes, MPLS routes (and possibly L2 or MCAST
> routes in future) - all have similar MPLS augmentation (in terms of local-
> label) while still adhering with RFC8349 to augment with leaf destination-
> prefix.
> 
>             augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
>               when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family, "
>                  + "'mpls:mpls')" {
>                 description
>                   "This augment is valid only for native MPLS routes.";
>               }
>               description
>                 "This leaf augments a native MPLS route.";
>               leaf destination-prefix {
>                 type leafref {
>                   path "../local-label";
>                 }
>                 description
>                   "MPLS destination prefix.";
>               }
>             }
> 
>             We follow same approach for the active route RPC and continue
> to use a leaf "destination-address" as input (that points to a local-label
> leaf).
>             If this is acceptable, we believe the errata 6251 can be
> rejected and we'll proceed with the change in the MPLS RIB model.
> 
>             Regards,
>             Tarek (for authors)
> 
>             On 8/11/20, 9:08 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> 
>                 [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
>                 Hi Tom, Draft Authors,
> 
>                 The draft could easily be fixed. You just need to:
> 
>                   1. Expand on the single sentence in section 2.1 on the
> need for non-IP MPLS routes. Given that the draft wasn't modeled
> correctly, this wasn't apparent to most of the reviewers.
>                   2. Add an MPLS AF only augmentation (enforced via a when
> statement) to each route for the MPLS AF specific destination-prefix or
> destination-address.
>                   3. Limit the current local-label augmentation to non-
> MPLS AFs.
>                   4. Limit the active-route augmentation to AF MPLS and
> change the input to destination-address.
> 
>                 Thanks,
>                 Acee
> 
>                 On 8/11/20, 6:10 AM, "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> wrote:
> 
>                     From: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
>                     Sent: 11 August 2020 10:47
> 
>                     Hi Tom,
>                     I fully understood your original comment. There are
> other problems with this model. See inline.
> 
>                     On 8/11/20, 4:59 AM, "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> wrote:
> 
>                         Tarek
> 
>                         Picking up on an earlier point,
> 
>                         ________________________________________
>                         From: Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net>
>                         Sent: 10 August 2020 21:23
> 
>                         Hi Acee,
> 
>                         The existing RPC is used to query (defined
> AFIs=IPv4/IPv6) RIB to return the matching active route identified by a
> "destination address".
>                         The MPLS module is trying to reuse this RPC so to
> query the MPLS RIB to return the matching active route identified by a
> "local label".
>                         The RPC defined in RFC 8349 readily accepts MPLS
> AFI in it (/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route) - unless we augment
> and suppress it with a "when check".
>                         IMO, it is reusable as-is but the text below is
> limiting the leaf name that identifies an entry in RIB to "destination-
> address" only - in MPLS RIB the entry leaf name that identifies an entry
> is "local-label".
> 
>                     It is not reusable as is since the augmentation RPC
> augmentation must have a when statement restricting it to AF MPLS. Also,
> local-label is a leaf which is applicable to all address families. It
> cannot be the AF MPLS destination-prefix. This augmentation is missing.
> 
>                     <tp>
>                     I am probably getting out of my depth here,  On 1may20
> I raised the issue of why the 'MUST' in the description in RFC8349 was not
> enforced in the YANG and 5may20 Martin explained that there is a rule in
> the YANG ABNF of input-stmt that makes the obvious impossible:-(  You are
> raising more profound issues about the RIB that I had not perceived when I
> reviewed mpls-base-yang for which I, and I hope everyone else, will be
> grateful.
> 
>                     If this mpls I-D is to proceed in the immediate
> future, it looks like the action may have to be deferred for future study.
> 
>                     More generally, I think that the interaction of
> forward by address and forward by label is challenging.  When first I
> looked at the MPLS I-D I was surprised at the way RFC8349 was augmented.
> I had not seen MPLS as an alternative to IPv4 or IPv6 or ... in the way in
> which the RFC is used although the RFC does state that it can be; rather,
> to me, labels are a different animal, but I assumed that everyone knew
> what they were doing.
> 
>                     Tom Petch
> 
> 
>                     Thanks,
>                     Acee
> 
> 
>                         <tp>
>                         There should be a 'when' check to enforce the
> 'MUST' but the rules of YANG do not allow it in this structure.  I raised
> this on the NETMOD list at the time of WGLC and Martin pointed me to a
> rule in the ABNF which prohibits such a check.  He also said that the rule
> was not needed and would be a candidate to remove when YANG is revised.
> 
>                         Hence I have always thought of this MUST in the
> documentation as a constraint that must be enforced in the YANG
> 
>                         Tom Petch
>                                 >            action active-route {
>                                 >              description
>                                 >                "Return the active RIB
> route that is used for the
>                                 >                 destination address.
>                                 >
>                                 >                 Address-family-specific
> modules MUST augment input
>                                 >                 parameters with a leaf
> named 'destination-address'.";
> 
>                         Regards,
>                         Tarek
> 
>                         On 8/10/20, 3:27 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)"
> <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>                             [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
>                             All (Speaking as an author of RFC 8349),
>                             I just looked at this in more detail and I
> don't think the ietf-mpls.yang model should be augmenting the
> /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route RPC. The intent of the RPC is
> to return the address-family specific active-route corresponding to the
> destination-address. This model attempts to overload this RPC with a
> different action all together - returning a route that has the local-label
> as an optional attribute. I'd reject the Errata and believe the
> augmentation should be removed from ietf-mpl.yang. Whether it is replaced
> with a different one is up to the co-authors of ietf-mpls.yang.
>                             Thanks,
>                             Acee
> 
>                             On 8/10/20, 2:29 PM, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)"
> <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>                                 [Resend to hopefully pass recipient limit
> filter]
> 
>                                 Hi Tom,
> 
>                                 I would be interested to hear from the
> original authors.
> 
>                                 My impression is that this is a
> technically reasonable change, but I don't think that an erratum can
> create a new revision of a YANG module.
> 
>                                 If this erratum was processed as "Hold for
> document update" then would that be sufficient to do the right thing in
> the MPLS YANG module?
> 
>                                 Regards,
>                                 Rob
> 
> 
>                                 > -----Original Message-----
>                                 > From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
>                                 > Sent: 10 August 2020 17:32
>                                 > To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-
> editor.org>; lhotka@nic.cz; Acee
>                                 > Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>om>;
> yingzhen.qu@huawei.com; warren@kumari.net;
>                                 > Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> <rwilton@cisco.com>om>; joelja@bogus.com;
>                                 > kent+ietf@watsen.net; lberger@labn.net
>                                 > Cc: tsaad@juniper.net; netmod@ietf.org
>                                 > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata
> Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
>                                 >
>                                 > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org>
> on behalf of RFC Errata System
>                                 > <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>                                 > Sent: 07 August 2020 16:45
>                                 >
>                                 > <tp>
>                                 > This is the erratum of whose arrival I
> speculated on this list on June
>                                 > 16th.
>                                 >
>                                 > There is a degree of urgency about it.
> The I-D in question is mpls-base-
>                                 > yang, currently in IETF Last Call, which
> is a Normative dependency of bfd-
>                                 > yang which is a Normative dependency for
> a small mountain of I-D which
>                                 > have been waiting a year or so (e.g.
> ospf-yang).
>                                 >
>                                 > I suspect that the technically perfect
> solution would involve a YANG
>                                 > union, choice or some such structure but
> as I said in my Last Call comment
>                                 > I can live with a label that contains
> such as 'address' encompassing such
>                                 > as 'label' in the context of forwarding.
> I take labels to mean what
>                                 > labels mean rather than what I might
> find in a work of reference.
>                                 >
>                                 > Tom Petch
>                                 >
>                                 > The following errata report has been
> submitted for RFC8349,
>                                 > "A YANG Data Model for Routing
> Management (NMDA Version)".
>                                 >
>                                 > --------------------------------------
>                                 > You may review the report below and at:
>                                 >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/errata/eid6251__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!URK5WVsqD5g7WpzCU1VuzKJA0AUiawXBFLB_gENlsYMrpiMqDtyFoxw8DnSr2A$
>                                 >
>                                 > --------------------------------------
>                                 > Type: Technical
>                                 > Reported by: Tarek Saad
> <tsaad@juniper.net>
>                                 >
>                                 > Section: 7
>                                 >
>                                 > Original Text
>                                 > -------------
>                                 > The RPC "active-route" is used to
> retrieve the active route in a RIB.
>                                 > RFC8349 defined two AFIs (v4/v6).
>                                 >
>                                 > draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang is defining a
> new RIB AFI for MPLS as per
>                                 > section 3 in RFC8349.
>                                 >
>                                 > The RPC has a "MUST" statement that all
> RIBs must augment input
>                                 > parameters with a leaf named
> 'destination-address'.
>                                 >
>                                 > For MPLS RIB, it makes sense to augment
> with leaf named 'local-label'
>                                 > since MPLS routes are identified by MPLS
> label.
>                                 >
>                                 > We ask to make the following change:
>                                 >
>                                 > OLD:
>                                 >            action active-route {
>                                 >              description
>                                 >                "Return the active RIB
> route that is used for the
>                                 >                 destination address.
>                                 >
>                                 >                 Address-family-specific
> modules MUST augment input
>                                 >                 parameters with a leaf
> named 'destination-address'.";
>                                 >
>                                 >
>                                 > Corrected Text
>                                 > --------------
>                                 > NEW:
>                                 >            action active-route {
>                                 >              description
>                                 >                "Return the active RIB
> route that is used for the
>                                 >                 destination address.
>                                 >
>                                 >                 Address-family-specific
> modules MUST augment input
>                                 >                 parameters with a
> suitable leaf that identifies the
>                                 > route.";
>                                 >
>                                 >
>                                 > Notes
>                                 > -----
>                                 >
>                                 >
>                                 > 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.
>                                 >
>                                 > --------------------------------------
>                                 > RFC8349 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-
> 11)
>                                 > --------------------------------------
>                                 > Title               : A YANG Data Model
> for Routing Management (NMDA
>                                 > Version)
>                                 > Publication Date    : March 2018
>                                 > Author(s)           : L. Lhotka, A.
> Lindem, Y. Qu
>                                 > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>                                 > Source              : Network Modeling
>                                 > Area                : Operations and
> Management
>                                 > Stream              : IETF
>                                 > Verifying Party     : IESG
>                                 >
>                                 >
> _______________________________________________
>                                 > netmod mailing list
>                                 > netmod@ietf.org
>                                 >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod__
> ;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!URK5WVsqD5g7WpzCU1VuzKJA0AUiawXBFLB_gENlsYMrpiMqDtyFoxxyc2_LZA$
> 
> 
> 
>                         Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> 
> 
>                 Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> 
>             Juniper Business Use Only
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         mpls mailing list
>         mpls@ietf.org
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     mpls mailing list
>     mpls@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls