From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of RFC Errata System <[email protected]> Sent: 07 August 2020 16:45
<tp> This is the erratum of whose arrival I speculated on this list on June 16th. There is a degree of urgency about it. The I-D in question is mpls-base-yang, currently in IETF Last Call, which is a Normative dependency of bfd-yang which is a Normative dependency for a small mountain of I-D which have been waiting a year or so (e.g. ospf-yang). I suspect that the technically perfect solution would involve a YANG union, choice or some such structure but as I said in my Last Call comment I can live with a label that contains such as 'address' encompassing such as 'label' in the context of forwarding. I take labels to mean what labels mean rather than what I might find in a work of reference. Tom Petch The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8349, "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6251 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Tarek Saad <[email protected]> Section: 7 Original Text ------------- The RPC "active-route" is used to retrieve the active route in a RIB. RFC8349 defined two AFIs (v4/v6). draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang is defining a new RIB AFI for MPLS as per section 3 in RFC8349. The RPC has a "MUST" statement that all RIBs must augment input parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'. For MPLS RIB, it makes sense to augment with leaf named 'local-label' since MPLS routes are identified by MPLS label. We ask to make the following change: OLD: action active-route { description "Return the active RIB route that is used for the destination address. Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'."; Corrected Text -------------- NEW: action active-route { description "Return the active RIB route that is used for the destination address. Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input parameters with a suitable leaf that identifies the route."; Notes ----- 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. -------------------------------------- RFC8349 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-11) -------------------------------------- Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version) Publication Date : March 2018 Author(s) : L. Lhotka, A. Lindem, Y. Qu Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network Modeling 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
