[Errata Rejected] RFC9067 (6845)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 11 February 2022 18:55 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510553A09AB; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:55:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8bSZTSfKBJiX; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B420A3A09B7; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 499) id 9A01AE52F1; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:55:44 -0800 (PST)
To: kris@netedge.plus, yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com, jefftant.ietf@gmail.com, acee@cisco.com, xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC9067 (6845)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220211185544.9A01AE52F1@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:55:44 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/bgPYfXCQmiH006VFB68AAuZi3iM>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:55:49 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC9067, "A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6845 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Kris Lambrechts <kris@netedge.plus> Date Reported: 2022-02-10 Rejected by: Alvaro Retana (IESG) Section: 7.2. Original Text ------------- list prefix-list { key "ip-prefix mask-length-lower mask-length-upper"; description "List of prefixes in the prefix set."; uses prefix; } Corrected Text -------------- list prefix { key "ip-prefix mask-length-lower mask-length-upper"; description "List of prefixes in the prefix set."; uses prefix; } Notes ----- The name of this list is not natural and makes instance data hard to read. This is very apparent in the example in Appendix B. Policy Examples --VERIFIER NOTES-- From the WG discussion: "This is a rather subjective comment since at this YANG data node is, in fact, a list. Also, it is a moot point since changing this would be a non-backward compatible YANG change." -------------------------------------- RFC9067 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-31) -------------------------------------- Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Publication Date : October 2021 Author(s) : Y. Qu, J. Tantsura, A. Lindem, X. Liu Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Routing Area Working Group Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Errata Rejected] RFC9067 (6845) RFC Errata System