[yang-doctors] [IANA #1230532] [Errata Verified] RFC8632 (6866)

[Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mahesh, all, 

Can you confirm that this is the correct set of actions? 

• Keep only one listing in the registry for this module, and link to the new version
• Add a revision statement and change the date in the filename to the revision date
• List the errata report as an additional reference (this is standard IANA practice)

Should we remove the original YANG module file from the repository?

Thanks,
Sabrina

On Thu May 19 19:11:17 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Sabrina,
> 
> The revision statement works for me. Thanks.
> 
> > On May 16, 2022, at 12:11 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <iana-
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mahesh,
> >
> > Thank you for your reply. We can update the file to reflect the
> > change in the errata.
> > Would the following revision statement be appropriate, or do you have
> > other suggestions?
> >
> > revision 2022-05-16 {
> >   description
> >     "Updated text per RFC Errata 6866.";
> >   reference
> >     "RFC Errata 6866";
> > }
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sabrina Tanamal
> > Lead IANA Services Specialist
> >
> > On Thu May 12 01:06:01 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> >> Hi Sabrina,
> >>
> >> Updating the file would be nice, although not necessary, as it
> >> affects
> >> readability but not the functionality of the module.
> >>
> >> Cheers.
> >>
> >>> On May 11, 2022, at 3:42 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <iana-matrix-
> >>> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi John and YANG Doctors,
> >>>
> >>> We have a question about this errata report. Since this affects the
> >>> ietf-alarms YANG module, do we need to update the file to reflect
> >>> the
> >>> change listed below, or would listing this errata report as an
> >>> additional reference for the registration be enough?
> >>>
> >>> The registry is here:
> >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Sabrina Tanamal
> >>> Lead IANA Services Specialist
> >>>
> >>> On Tue May 10 15:58:24 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>>> The following errata report has been verified for RFC8632,
> >>>> "A YANG Data Model for Alarm Management".
> >>>>
> >>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>> You may review the report below and at:
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6866
> >>>>
> >>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>> Status: Verified
> >>>> Type: Technical
> >>>>
> >>>> Reported by: Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Date Reported: 2022-03-04
> >>>> Verified by: John Scudder (IESG)
> >>>>
> >>>> Section: 6
> >>>>
> >>>> Original Text
> >>>> -------------
> >>>> container older-than {
> >>>> presence "Age specification";
> >>>> description
> >>>>   "Matches the 'last-status-change' leaf in the alarm.";
> >>>> choice age-spec {
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Corrected Text
> >>>> --------------
> >>>> container older-than {
> >>>> presence "Age specification";
> >>>> description
> >>>>   "Matches the 'last-changed' leaf in the alarm.";
> >>>> choice age-spec {
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Notes
> >>>> -----
> >>>> There is no last-status-change leaf in alarm (and it seems there
> >>>> never
> >>>> was).
> >>>>
> >>>> See also
> >>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/wmCgk0DQq0lG6S_e59W-
> >>>> MKW8EOQ/
> >>>>
> >>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>> RFC8632 (draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-09)
> >>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>> Title               : A YANG Data Model for Alarm Management
> >>>> Publication Date    : September 2019
> >>>> Author(s)           : S. Vallin, M. Bjorklund
> >>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> >>>> Source              : Common Control and Measurement Plane
> >>>> Area                : Routing
> >>>> Stream              : IETF
> >>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> yang-doctors mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
> >>
> >>
> >> Mahesh Jethanandani
> >> [e-mail]
> >
> 
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail]