HI! I looked at the discussion on this report. It seems to me that everyone agrees that the addition to the RD (and the route-origin) is incorrect.
However, if I understand rfc7950 correctly, changes in the content of a model requires an updated model (a new RFC). I am then going to mark this report as "Hold for Document Update” so that it is considered when/if a revision is considered. BTW, I’ll include a pointer to this thread and a mention of the route-origin so a separate report is not needed. Thanks! Alvaro. On November 18, 2022 at 3:18:49 PM, RFC Errata System ( [email protected]) wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8294, "Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7255 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> Section: 3 Original Text ------------- typedef route-distinguisher { type string { pattern '(0:(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|' + '6[0-4][0-9]{3}|' + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0):(429496729[0-5]|' + '42949672[0-8][0-9]|' + '4294967[01][0-9]{2}|429496[0-6][0-9]{3}|' + '42949[0-5][0-9]{4}|' + '4294[0-8][0-9]{5}|429[0-3][0-9]{6}|' + '42[0-8][0-9]{7}|4[01][0-9]{8}|' + '[1-3][0-9]{9}|[1-9][0-9]{0,8}|0))|' + '(1:((([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|' + '25[0-5])\.){3}([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|' + '1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])):(6553[0-5]|' + '655[0-2][0-9]|' + '65[0-4][0-9]{2}|6[0-4][0-9]{3}|' + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0))|' + '(2:(429496729[0-5]|42949672[0-8][0-9]|' + '4294967[01][0-9]{2}|' + '429496[0-6][0-9]{3}|42949[0-5][0-9]{4}|' + '4294[0-8][0-9]{5}|' + '429[0-3][0-9]{6}|42[0-8][0-9]{7}|4[01][0-9]{8}|' + '[1-3][0-9]{9}|[1-9][0-9]{0,8}|0):' + '(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|' + '6[0-4][0-9]{3}|' + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0))|' + '(6(:[a-fA-F0-9]{2}){6})|' + '(([3-57-9a-fA-F]|[1-9a-fA-F][0-9a-fA-F]{1,3}):' + '[0-9a-fA-F]{1,12})'; } Corrected Text -------------- typedef route-distinguisher { type string { pattern '(0:(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|' + '6[0-4][0-9]{3}|' + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0):(429496729[0-5]|' + '42949672[0-8][0-9]|' + '4294967[01][0-9]{2}|429496[0-6][0-9]{3}|' + '42949[0-5][0-9]{4}|' + '4294[0-8][0-9]{5}|429[0-3][0-9]{6}|' + '42[0-8][0-9]{7}|4[01][0-9]{8}|' + '[1-3][0-9]{9}|[1-9][0-9]{0,8}|0))|' + '(1:((([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|' + '25[0-5])\.){3}([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|' + '1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])):(6553[0-5]|' + '655[0-2][0-9]|' + '65[0-4][0-9]{2}|6[0-4][0-9]{3}|' + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0))|' + '(2:(429496729[0-5]|42949672[0-8][0-9]|' + '4294967[01][0-9]{2}|' + '429496[0-6][0-9]{3}|42949[0-5][0-9]{4}|' + '4294[0-8][0-9]{5}|' + '429[0-3][0-9]{6}|42[0-8][0-9]{7}|4[01][0-9]{8}|' + '[1-3][0-9]{9}|[1-9][0-9]{0,8}|0):' + '(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|' + '6[0-4][0-9]{3}|' + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0))'; } Notes ----- Type 6 route-distinguishers are not defined. See the registry at IANA: https://www.iana.org/assignments/route-distinguisher-types/route-distinguisher-types.xhtml 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. -------------------------------------- RFC8294 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-17) -------------------------------------- Title : Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area Publication Date : December 2017 Author(s) : X. Liu, Y. Qu, A. Lindem, C. Hopps, L. Berger 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
