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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 20 March 2018 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555471270AE for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id og2JFx6LlE8c for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27CF212EAEE for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5061; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1521554293; x=1522763893; h=from:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=GREdP7/jR96d5E12lmMJByHgi4R/i5yAqr0ZbewdThs=; b=b3LoCCkPuuXn5bB0nyIBOP4O0cWprBGbFBVZ1DXAvhGpApeRamaaV44+ Nm3dfHYVArkjY6muUWX/FQvMEdVytbIGbAZBbdX6TC/d2z7+94g/pnfAo YEYv/ZgPuvVP1n45wNGBdrM/c4sjNS7gF6T50FQ0AlCy4SwiMpJ/roIGv 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CbAgDOErFa/xbLJq1EGhsBAQEBAwEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QkBAQGENnIog12LD45lgT+OeIUPFIF+CyWIWzYWAQIBAQEBAQECayiFT28GPgJ?= =?us-ascii?q?fDQYCAQGFFg8yjGSbQIImJoRIg2uCDoU3g2qBVCgMgmyDHgICAQEXgRODQIJhA?= =?us-ascii?q?5g9CYFKhEWJJAeBTkCGDoUah0OBcYFNhTmBKiUBMBKBQDMaCBsVgn0JkGJANAG?= =?us-ascii?q?OIyyCGwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,335,1517875200"; d="scan'208,217";a="2726916"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Mar 2018 13:58:09 +0000
Received: from [] (ams3-vpn-dhcp6046.cisco.com []) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2KDw9XH008717 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:58:09 GMT
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <a7e6176f-bb53-9336-ec52-04b910d80a15@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:58:09 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F19FDA75C4D4943758BE544F"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/xQnJfeHqz1OBj1qRgEY0nnP9AkI>
Subject: [yang-doctors] New procedure for errata affecting YANG modules
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:58:20 -0000

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: 
             => we see that 
ietf-netconf-notifications-nmda@2018-02-01.yang YANG module does not 
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