Re: [yang-doctors] New procedure for errata affecting YANG modules

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 21 March 2018 08:40 UTC

From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
References: <a7e6176f-bb53-9336-ec52-04b910d80a15@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <8c2b182d-17b2-f91f-5864-72780777a4bf@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:40:42 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a7e6176f-bb53-9336-ec52-04b910d80a15@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------51277CDB07EBC8D5D50486A6"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/GKRoS-sfXRzFLOt4SfjqqxeOXZg>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] New procedure for errata affecting YANG modules
Precedence: list

Copying Ignas, as I'm not sure he is on the YANG doctor list yet.
Ignas, the AI will be on you to try this process for RFC6470.

Regards, B.
> Dear all,
>
> As discussed during our YANG doctor meeting today.
>
> The issue: RFC 6470 errata 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6470> that impacts a 
> YANG module
>
> Here is the proposed procedure, to be agreed with/by the YANG doctors.
>
> 1. YANG doctors/AD evaluate the errata
> 2. If the errata is valid, the errata is accepted
> 3. Two cases from here
>   case 1: the errata is editorial
>                => ask IANA to update the YANG module in the registry
>                => we keep the same revision data
>   case 2: the errata impacts the toolchain
>                => need a new revision and, as a consequence a new RFC
> 4. For case 2: Check the YANG impact analysis
>         Is there a cascading effect?
>         Do the depending YANG modules validate?
>         Should the authors of the dependent YANG modules be warned
>         Typical cases: import by revision, the leafs are used/not used 
> in the dependent YANG module
>         for ex: 
> https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-netconf-notifications@2011-12-09.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both
>             => we see that 
> draft-wu-netconf-base-notification-nmda-00.txt 
> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-netconf-base-notification-nmda> 
> ietf-netconf-notifications-nmda@2018-02-01.yang YANG module does not 
> validate
> 5. For case 2:
>     We use an expedite process for the new RFC, to publish the RFC 
> with only the errata applied
>     The new RFC obsoletes the old one
>
> Note1: this process should not be a backdoor to publish new things
> Note2: the expedite processing should be validated by the IESG, on a 
> case by case basis
> Note3: the YANG module update (case 1) should be validated by IANA 
> (Michelle Cotton), on a case by case basis.
> Note3: if the case 2 takes more than a month, we need a different process
>
> Regards, Benoit

[yang-doctors] New procedure for errata affecting… Benoit Claise
Re: [yang-doctors] New procedure for errata affec… Benoit Claise