RFC Errata
RFC 8466, "A YANG Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Service Delivery", October 2018
Source of RFC: l2sm (ops)
Errata ID: 6699
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mohamed Boucadair
Date Reported: 2021-10-01
Held for Document Update by: Rob Wilton
Date Held: 2023-10-02
Section 8 says:
container lacp {
if-feature "lacp";
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"LACP on/off. By default, LACP is disabled.";
}
leaf mode {
type neg-mode;
description
"LACP mode. LACP modes have active mode and
passive mode ('false'). 'Active mode' means
initiating the auto-speed negotiation and
trying to form an Ethernet channel with the
other end. 'Passive mode' means not initiating
the negotiation but responding to LACP packets
initiated by the other end (e.g., full duplex
or half duplex).";
}
It should say:
container lacp {
if-feature "lacp";
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"LACP on/off. By default, LACP is disabled.";
}
leaf mode {
type identityref {
base lacp-mode;
}
description
"LACP mode. LACP modes have active mode and
passive mode ('false'). 'Active mode' means
initiating the auto-speed negotiation and
trying to form an Ethernet channel with the
other end. 'Passive mode' means not initiating
the negotiation but responding to LACP packets
initiated by the other end (e.g., full duplex
or half duplex).";
}
Also, make this change:
OLD:
| +--rw lag-interfaces {lag-interface}?
| | +--rw lag-interface* [index]
| | +--rw index string
| | +--rw lacp {lacp}?
| | +--rw enabled? boolean
| | +--rw mode? neg-mode
NEW:
| +--rw lag-interfaces {lag-interface}?
| | +--rw lag-interface* [index]
| | +--rw index string
| | +--rw lacp {lacp}?
| | +--rw enabled? boolean
| | +--rw mode? identityref
Notes:
The LACP mode can be set to active or passive, which is not what neg-mode is supposed to cover. lacp-mode identity should be used, instead.
The errata looks valid, but given this requires a new revision of the YANG module a new RFC needs to be published.
