Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Lou Berger
I think we need something. BTW I'm fine with obsoletes ;-) On 1/23/2017 12:08 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Lou, > > RFC 7950 does not update anything in RFC 6020. > > In hindsight, the proper tag would have been 'Obsoletes: RFC 6020' but > that was considered too 'aggressive' at that time

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Benoit Claise
On 1/23/2017 5:26 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 23 Jan 2017, at 16:51, Robert Wilton wrote: I would suggest tweaking the order of the words slightly: Old: The interpretation of any other character then the ones listed above following a backslash is undefined. Authors are

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
Lou, RFC 7950 does not update anything in RFC 6020. In hindsight, the proper tag would have been 'Obsoletes: RFC 6020' but that was considered too 'aggressive' at that time and now it is too late to put it in. I suggest to leave it alone. People who simply google 'yang rfc' will hopefully find

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 23 Jan 2017, at 16:51, Robert Wilton wrote: > > I would suggest tweaking the order of the words slightly: > > Old: > > The interpretation of any other character then the ones listed above > following a backslash is undefined. Authors are advised to avoid using > such

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Robert Wilton
I would suggest tweaking the order of the words slightly: Old: The interpretation of any *other character then* the ones listed above following a backslash is undefined. Authors are advised to avoid using such backslash sequences in double-quoted strings in their YANG modules. New: The

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Benoit Claise
On 1/23/2017 4:33 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Benoit Claise wrote: On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Benoit Claise wrote: > On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder > >> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >>> Juergen Schoenwaelder

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Benoit Claise
On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: Benoit, RFC 6020

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: >> >>> Benoit, >>> >>> RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > > > Benoit, > > > > RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for > > YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > Benoit, > > RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for > YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous > character sequences (and avoiding ambiguity can be easily done). > > YANG

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Benoit Claise
On 1/23/2017 11:46 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: Benoit, RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous character sequences (and avoiding ambiguity can be easily done). YANG 1.1 fixes the ambiguity in

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Hi, I agree with what Juergen writes below. Also, if we *really* wanted to change RFC 6020 in this regard (which I don't think we should!), I think the change should be the equivalent of Y06-01: Clarify that "\x" means the two characters '\' and 'x', i.e., "\x" is equivalent to '\x'.

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
Benoit, RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous character sequences (and avoiding ambiguity can be easily done). YANG 1.1 fixes the ambiguity in YANG 1 but backporting this fix to YANG 1 is a change