[yang-doctors] [IANA #1363152] [Errata Verified] RFC8029 (7892)

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

Hi Mahesh,

Following up on our conversation at the IANA desk, here is the module we would need to update:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/[e-mail]

Can you confirm if we should move forward with this change and include the erratum as an additional reference for the registration?

Additionally, could you review and confirm the following revision statement if we proceed with the update?

revision 2024-11-05 {
    description
      "Updated text per RFC Errata 7892.";
    reference
      "RFC Errata 7892";
  }

Thanks,
Sabrina

On Tue Nov 05 14:44:03 2024, amanda.baber wrote:
> Hi Mahesh, Kent,
> 
> This is a recent message telling us that IANA shouldn't update YANG
> modules. I have one other message from this year to forward as well,
> which Kent wasn't copied on.
> 
> thanks,
> Amanda
> 
> On Mon May 06 19:25:34 2024, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > This is more a question for me, more than Warren, but he is free to
> > chime in. And sorry, this is something that fell through the cracks.
> >
> > It is true that IANA cannot update an IETF module. I agree that we
> > should handle this as an errata that is filed against RFC 8532, where
> > this YANG model resides. I can go ahead, and file that errata.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> > > On May 6, 2024, at 11:34 AM, David Dong via RT <iana-matrix-
> > > [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Warren,
> > >
> > > To follow up on this, could you clarify how we should move forward
> > > for this errata/YANG module?
> > >
> > > I don't think IANA would be able to make the update to the YANG
> > > module since it's an IETF maintained module; I think an errata
> > > would
> > > have to be submitted against the RFC.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > David Dong
> > > IANA Services Sr. Specialist
> > >
> > > On Thu Apr 25 10:42:04 2024, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >> Whilst I’m not opposed, why not add a revision statement too?
> > >>
> > >> For published modules, this is the way to signal that an update
> > >> has
> > >> been made.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If the update can occur wholly within IANA (no IESG), then this is
> > >> a
> > >> 5-minute
> > >> effort, right?
> > >>
> > >> One consideration, if there is ever a bis, the authors would have
> > >> to
> > >> be
> > >> mindful to start with the new module…
> > >>
> > >> K.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Apr 24, 2024, at 11:47 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani
> > >>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Hi David,
> > >>
> > >>> We should update the title of the RFC in the YANG model.
> > >>
> > >>> That does raise the question of whether a revision statement
> > >>> needs
> > >>> to
> > >>> be
> > >>> added to the YANG model to reflect the change of the title. I
> > >>> think
> > >>> we can
> > >>> skip adding the revision statement to the model, as we are not
> > >>> changing
> > >>> the model in a meaningful way. If anyone disagrees, please speak
> > >>> up.
> > >>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>> On Apr 24, 2024, at 7:46 PM, David Dong via RT <
> > >>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> Hi Jim (mpls AD) / Mahesh and Warren (ops ADs) / YANG Doctors,
> > >>
> > >>>> This erratum (7892) corrects the title of RFC 8029. However,
> > >>>> there
> > >>>> is
> > >>>> an IETF YANG module, [e-mail],
> > >>>> that
> > >>>> references the full title of RFC 8029. What actions (if any)
> > >>>> should
> > >>>> we
> > >>>> take with regards to this YANG module for this erratum?
> > >>
> > >>>> The YANG Module in question:
> > >>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/
> > >>>> [e-mail]
> > >>
> > >>>> Thank you.
> > >>
> > >>>> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >>>> David Dong
> > >>>> IANA Services Sr. Specialist
> > >>
> > >>>> On Tue Apr 16 12:01:06 2024, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>> The following errata report has been verified for RFC8029,
> > >>>>> "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane
> > >>>>> Failures".
> > >>
> > >>>>> --------------------------------------
> > >>>>> You may review the report below and at:
> > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7892
> > >>
> > >>>>> --------------------------------------
> > >>>>> Status: Verified
> > >>>>> Type: Editorial
> > >>
> > >>>>> Reported by: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> > >>>>> Date Reported: 2024-04-15
> > >>>>> Verified by: James Guichard (IESG)
> > >>
> > >>>>> Section: GLOBAL
> > >>
> > >>>>> Original Text
> > >>>>> -------------
> > >>>>> Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane
> > >>>>> Failures
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>> Corrected Text
> > >>>>> --------------
> > >>>>> Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched Data-Plane Failures
> > >>>>> or
> > >>>>> Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Data-Plane
> > >>>>> Failures.
> > >>
> > >>>>> Notes
> > >>>>> -----
> > >>>>> MPLS expands to  "Multiprotocol Label Switching", not to
> > >>>>> "Multiprotocol Label Switched".
> > >>
> > >>>>> Either we can remove the abbreviation in the title or
> > >>>>> s/Switched/Switching, either of the
> > >>>>> alternatives work.
> > >>
> > >>>>> --------------------------------------
> > >>>>> RFC8029 (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-09)
> > >>>>> --------------------------------------
> > >>>>> Title               : Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched
> > >>>>> (MPLS)
> > >>>>> Data-Plane Failures
> > >>>>> Publication Date    : March 2017
> > >>>>> Author(s)           : K. Kompella, G. Swallow, C. Pignataro,
> > >>>>> Ed.,
> > >>>>> N.
> > >>>>> Kumar, S. Aldrin, M. Chen
> > >>>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > >>>>> Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
> > >>>>> Stream              : IETF
> > >>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Mahesh Jethanandani
> > >>> [e-mail]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> yang-doctors mailing list
> > >>> [e-mail]
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
> > >
> >
> >
> > Mahesh Jethanandani
> > [e-mail]