Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> writes: > >>> > >>>> Benoit, > >>>> > >>>> RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for > >>>> YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous > >>>> character sequences (and avoiding ambiguity can be easily done). > >>>> > >>>> YANG 1.1 fixes the ambiguity in YANG 1 but backporting this fix to > >>>> YANG 1 is a change of YANG 1, i.e., it might turn a conforming > >>>> implementation into a non-conforming implementation. Hence, this may > >>>> go beyond the scope of an errata. > >>> But it is not really the case here because it cannot be decided what > >>> conforming means. I chose YANG 1.1 behaviour for my JS parser, and I > >>> don't think it is less conforming than any other. > >> Exactly. But other interpretations are legal as well. We can not > >> retroactively turn so far conforming implementations of the RFC into > >> non-conforming implementations (via an errata that introduces a MUST > >> that was not there in the beginning). > >> > >>> This would be fine for the "Notes" part but RFC Errata require also > >>> "Original Text" and "Corrected Text". Any suggestion for this? > >> 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 interpretation of any other character then the ones listed above > >> following a backslash is undefined. Authors are advised to avoid using > >> such backslash sequences in double-quoted strings in their YANG > >> modules. > > OK, this looks good. Benoit, will you first reject the existing > > errata? > Instead of rejected, I modified the errata 4911. > A final check please before I approve it. > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4911
Hmm, I still just see the orignal errata text when I follow this link. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
