Martin,
On 1/18/2017 8:55 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > RFC Errata System <[email protected]> wrote: >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6020, >> "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration >> Protocol (NETCONF)". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6020&eid=4911 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> >> >> Section: 6.1.3 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> Within a double-quoted string (enclosed within " "), a backslash >> character introduces a special character, which depends on the >> character that immediately follows the backslash: >> >> \n new line >> \t a tab character >> \" a double quote >> \ a single backslash >> >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> Within a double-quoted string (enclosed within " "), a backslash >> character introduces a special character, which depends on the >> character that immediately follows the backslash: >> >> \n new line >> \t a tab character >> \" a double quote >> \ a single backslash >> >> The backslash MUST NOT be followed by any other character. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> The text doesn't state whether other characters may follow the >> backslash, and if yes, what it means. Existing implementations have >> used three approaches: >> >> 1. report an error if another character follows the backslash >> 2. keep only the character following the backslash, i.e., for example, >> "\x" is the same as "x". >> 3. keep both the backslash and the character following it. >> >> This ambiguity is undesirable and YANG 1.1 [RFC 7950] explicitly >> adopted option #1. However, many modules are still being written using >> YANG version 1.0, so it is important to clarify this issue in RFC 6020 >> as well. > I don't think this errata should be accepted. As stated, the spec is > unclear, and YANG 1.1 has fixed this problem. But it is not clear > that the original intention when RFC 6020 was written was #1. > Accepting this errata now would make existing implementations and > modules invalid. > > The solution moving forward is to use YANG 1.1. > IMO this highlights why 1.1 probably should have at least been identified as updating 1.0... I have no idea that it would take to just change this, but I suspect it might be a new RFC. I'll ask the rfc-editor about the process (no change being made at this time...) Lou > /martin > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
