RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 9067, "A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy", October 2021

Source of RFC: rtgwg (rtg)

Errata ID: 6844
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML

Reported By: Kris Lambrechts
Date Reported: 2022-02-10
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2022-02-11

Section 7.2. grouping prefix says:

       leaf mask-length-upper {
         type uint8 {
           range "1..128";
         }

It should say:

       leaf mask-length-upper {
         type uint8 {
           range "0..128";
         }

Notes:

With the original definition, it is not possible to specify an exact match for the default routes (0.0.0.0/0 and ::/0) which is a valid use case.

===== AD Note ====
This report is valid, but the resolution requires an update to the YANG model and not just a text correction.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 9067, "A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy", October 2021

Source of RFC: rtgwg (rtg)

Errata ID: 6845
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML

Reported By: Kris Lambrechts
Date Reported: 2022-02-10
Rejected by: Alvaro Retana
Date Rejected: 2022-02-11

Section 7.2. says:

               list prefix-list {
                 key "ip-prefix mask-length-lower mask-length-upper";
                 description
                   "List of prefixes in the prefix set.";
                 uses prefix;
               }

It should say:

               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
--VERIFIER NOTES--
From the WG discussion: "This is a rather subjective comment since at this YANG data node is, in fact, a list. Also, it is a moot point since changing this would be a non-backward compatible YANG change."

Report New Errata



Advanced Search