I agree it should be held for update. It is was too long an ago to remember where the type 6 came from. I guess type 6 is valid for route-target and it was probably mistakenly added for route-distinguisher and route-origin.
Thanks, Acee > On Feb 13, 2023, at 2:06 PM, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The following errata report has been held for document update > 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 > > -------------------------------------- > Status: Held for Document Update > Type: Technical > > Reported by: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> > Date Reported: 2022-11-18 > Held by: Alvaro Retana (IESG) > > 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 > > === AD Notes (Alvaro Retana) === > The WG discussed this report: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/o536w2kGqGO-PULTSNTfxyO96ZQ/ > > There is agreement that the report is correct, but the document needs to be > updated. > > Also, a similar error in the string related to the route-origin needs to also > be corrected. > > -------------------------------------- > 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 _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
