The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC9129, "YANG Data Model for the OSPF Protocol".
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8759 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Technical Reported by: Tamás Juhász <[email protected]> Date Reported: 2026-02-13 Held by: Gunter Van de Velde (IESG) Section: 2.9 Original Text ------------- 2.9. OSPF RPC Operations The "ietf-ospf" module defines two RPC operations: clear-database: Resets the contents of a particular OSPF LSDB, forces neighbor adjacencies to the 'DOWN' state, and reoriginates self-originated LSAs. clear-neighbor: Resets a particular OSPF neighbor or group of neighbors associated with an OSPF interface. rpcs: +---x clear-neighbor | +---w input | +---w routing-protocol-name | + -> /rt:routing/control-plane-protocols/ | + control-plane-protocol/name | +---w interface? if:interface-ref +---x clear-database +---w input +---w routing-protocol-name -> /rt:routing/control-plane-protocols/ control-plane-protocol/name Corrected Text -------------- For OSPF RPC operations, besides routing-protocol-name - which is in fact the OSPF instance name and could be named as instance-name - we would need to specify the instance-type (ospfv2 or ospfv3) too. Without this, RPC cannot handle the situation of having an OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 process with the same name. Using the same name is not restricted by config part of the yang OSPF tree, as type/name are the keys of an OSPF instance. Notes ----- For OSPF RPC operations, besides routing-protocol-name - which is in fact the OSPF instance name and could be named as instance-name - we would need to specify the instance-type (ospfv2 or ospfv3) too. Without this, RPC cannot handle the situation of having an OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 process with the same name. Using the same name is not restricted by config part of the yang OSPF tree, as type/name are the keys of an OSPF instance. There could be ambiguity if the same name is used since both "type" and "name". Adding the optional 'w type?' seems to be feasible and backward compatible augmentation to resolve the Errata. -------------------------------------- RFC9129 (draft-ietf-ospf-yang-29) -------------------------------------- Title : YANG Data Model for the OSPF Protocol Publication Date : October 2022 Author(s) : D. Yeung, Y. Qu, Z. Zhang, I. Chen, A. Lindem Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Link State Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
