Lou, RFC 7950 does not update anything in RFC 6020.
In hindsight, the proper tag would have been 'Obsoletes: RFC 6020' but that was considered too 'aggressive' at that time and now it is too late to put it in. I suggest to leave it alone. People who simply google 'yang rfc' will hopefully find the latest version. ;-) /js On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:09:53AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > How do you feel about an errata on 1.0 that it should be considered to > be updated by 1.1? > > Lou > > > On 1/23/2017 6:08 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > On 1/23/2017 11:46 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> 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. > >> > >> If tools generate proper warnings, I think we are fine and we do not > >> need to change YANG 1. These kind of issues are caught by tools, not > >> by humans reading language specifications. > >> > >> If you feel strongly that an errata is needed, then the errata should > >> simply clearly spell out that certain backslahs sequences are > >> ambiguous and provide advice that they should not be used. > > That would work. > > Can we modify the errata this way. > > > > Regards, Benoit > >> This is > >> backwards compatible. Making them illegal is not backwards compatible. > >> > >> /js > >> > >> PS: This is also my recollection of the discussion of issue Y06 when > >> YANG 1.1 was put together. > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:29:25AM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> Let me summarize the situation. > >>> - The RFC 6020 spec is clearly ambiguous. > >>> - The solution is to use YANG 1.1 > >>> - RFC 7950 doesn't update or obsolete RFC 6020 (*) > >>> - We should stop this problem from spreading further: updating > >>> tooling > >>> is one good aspect, we should update the spec. too to at least warn the > >>> users. > >>> > >>> There is no perfect solution. > >>> Because of (*), I believe I should accept this errata. > >>> Any strong objections? If you have, propose a better plan. And I don't > >>> believe that "do nothing" is sufficient. > >>> > >>> Regarding the "update" solution, see the RFC 7950 writeup at > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis/shepherdwriteup/ > >>> > >>> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any > >>> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed > >>> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are > >>> not > >>> listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the > >>> part of the document where the relationship of this document to the > >>> other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, > >>> explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. > >>> > >>> No. YANG 1.0 [RFC6020] is not expected to change its status since > >>> there are data models on the standards-track that conform to YANG > >>> 1.0. YANG 1.0 may be considered for retirement once all data models > >>> have naturally been updated to a future version of YANG. > >>> > >>> Regards, Benoit > >>>> 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 <lho...@nic.cz> > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Instructions: > >>>> ------------- > >>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > >>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > >>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > >>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>> RFC6020 (draft-ietf-netmod-yang-13) > >>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>> Title : YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network > >>>> Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) > >>>> Publication Date : October 2010 > >>>> Author(s) : M. Bjorklund, Ed. > >>>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > >>>> Source : NETCONF Data Modeling Language > >>>> Area : Operations and Management > >>>> Stream : IETF > >>>> Verifying Party : IESG > >>>> . > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> netmod mailing list > >>> netmod@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
