Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9067 (6845)

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 11 February 2022 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
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 C415C3A03F5 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:53:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 tJgPY5OslVW3 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:53:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFD613A0991 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id ch26so17716817edb.12 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:53:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WASgiZn9FCSxQNvlNwHdpayT6hSYVY899meUs7Nk0hU=; b=VRuB3siex5N54IfmVe/DRb4G0IbB/wWvZPHU39eZxuuW8IR4zjviO6Pnfc2uCmQRO+ dAg1w8yY+u/Xek7DiPa4ztZGxq1RmnYP/4cs8aGpwJg66waGJfJ/JN8vK5CUAQtFJ29T drubtbr/CHstGfUTv0oAtJjMkh4K5+m9+JvDP+0cyCyAm47z8ELVqUU7+Nn4mkyux5PB 3tM1vOZFAl5e1qbnXxnF/u8cBdiuk4a+ZoBMw+C3CUvwqL8nAqv3udi0rjv/uxugf1f6 EAtwvP5cyoVUWpIhKmhh896uV6Tl4oPEovbvDKm4s93jFwSdMevxYzgGPnW5l83sHszO gThQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WASgiZn9FCSxQNvlNwHdpayT6hSYVY899meUs7Nk0hU=; b=u1G4D8jKoDuWW1IElOffNun+bivCgcaUei7+UJzjXRxQTmPhBlX/2252E0QN9lk3yW iJB9qso4KfCYHSZyOpAoW5kcRn351Rc7Ja3VW/YSfbaKx48zlvxbuVp6I7szv81Z2jvq jkUZ954956HC7eHdKog7kuy+tu48klJ++RFEdSoLARW3rs6W6n7FJ3fz1Oi1Y7dHuGWE qnOObA5nLn7HTh0TiuCdEyhsY3NvKEiJeW10RwpCuOvzXk2fwvmiUgkClVMWAjjviOJ4 SmwqyKZZQvjKvh4SaU/a5OLlvSq4k8hWBL/IOLx1nfNYPGu5XzALHDXjjgRyXSI3ICNB k3qg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532VYFKy/IreFkb9sCjZ8EtRGdNdgdF6BF7JXfxxHozcg8ywWB81 UNYHRUObW0nXwFjUN8cgB4dB/bhAfvApXyWsgrs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxsc5g1hWF3/FQeOeExX/3Z7E0rP7u/ILlxoNuAQQFFXaackWYI5lMhU5rILmMsB/6CT7clj5SZ7vrxazcM+JI=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:cdc5:: with SMTP id h5mr3461696edw.398.1644605593572; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:53:12 +0000
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7A249488-8F63-4406-95A1-0C109AFE4B29@cisco.com>
References: <20220210172006.DDF411BA3B82@rfc-editor.org> <7A249488-8F63-4406-95A1-0C109AFE4B29@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:53:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMMESsxjgHXo=K8AAs0Whxx+-ESdZw4eN8KoYHwL9pJ+HESQrg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9067 (6845)
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com" <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>, "martin.vigoureux@nokia.com" <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com" <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, "jefftant.ietf@gmail.com" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, "jgs@juniper.net" <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "kris@netedge.plus" <kris@netedge.plus>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000335af305d7c294c4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/cwvI7hAPeBkhCXqbO9hDlBCcFzw>
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 18:53:24 -0000

[Removed rfc-editor.]


I agree with Acee.  I’m marking this report as rejected.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On February 10, 2022 at 12:30:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) (acee@cisco.com)
wrote:

This is a rather subjective comment since at this YANG data node is, in
fact, a list. There are many models that follow this format even it seems a
bit verbose in the xml examples. Also, it is a moot point since changing
this would be a non-backward compatible YANG change. Please reject this
Errata.
Thanks,
Acee

On 2/10/22, 12:20 PM, "RFC Errata System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
wrote:

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9067,
"A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6845

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Kris Lambrechts <kris@netedge.plus>

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

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.

--------------------------------------
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