I think we need something. BTW I'm fine with obsoletes ;-)
On 1/23/2017 12:08 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > 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 <[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. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
