On 1/11/2018 10:12 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:49:24AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Will do. As it happens, I always just look into the MIBs distributed
by libsmi, and it seems the MIB is not updated there ;-)
OK. My fault.
Which leads
to an interesting issue - the errata for the MIB not only changes the
description in the comment, but it also changes the *value*. I will
thus do the same in the YANG module:
enum peta {
value 14;
description
"Data scaling factor of 10^15.";
}
enum exa {
value 15;
description
"Data scaling factor of 10^18.";
}
This matches the verified MIB Errata, but since the original MIB is
probably present in most distributions, I wouldn't be surprised if
this object is not correctly implemented in real code... When I
googled for the MIB I found several instances of NON-updated MIBs, and
zero instances of an updated MIB.
Yes. This is very subtle. Not changing the value would also have been
somewhat odd since tera and exa are then 'out of natural order'. But
it might have been more robust. Anyway, the errata says what it says
and all we can do now is likely to hope that people running into this
at the end find the errata linked to the RFC. Hence, I will commit the
errata fix to the libsmi repository now.
Exactly the discussion we've been having on the YANG doctor list.
"- errata on the YANG module inside a RFC: this is looking for troubles
IMO."
Obviously the same applies for MIB modules.
Regards, Benoit
/js
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
