This is a rather subjective comment since at this YANG data node is, in fact, a list. There are many models that follow this format even it seems a bit verbose in the xml examples. Also, it is a moot point since changing this would be a non-backward compatible YANG change. Please reject this Errata. Thanks, Acee
On 2/10/22, 12:20 PM, "RFC Errata System" <[email protected]> wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9067, "A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6845 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Kris Lambrechts <[email protected]> Section: 7.2. Original Text ------------- list prefix-list { key "ip-prefix mask-length-lower mask-length-upper"; description "List of prefixes in the prefix set."; uses prefix; } Corrected Text -------------- list prefix { key "ip-prefix mask-length-lower mask-length-upper"; description "List of prefixes in the prefix set."; uses prefix; } Notes ----- The name of this list is not natural and makes instance data hard to read. This is very apparent in the example in Appendix B. Policy Examples 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. -------------------------------------- RFC9067 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-31) -------------------------------------- Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Publication Date : October 2021 Author(s) : Y. Qu, J. Tantsura, A. Lindem, X. Liu Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Routing Area Working Group Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
