RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 8632, "A YANG Data Model for Alarm Management", September 2019

Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)

Errata ID: 6866
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Reshad Rahman
Date Reported: 2022-03-04
Verifier Name: John Scudder
Date Verified: 2022-05-10

Section 6 says:

      container older-than {
        presence "Age specification";
        description
          "Matches the 'last-status-change' leaf in the alarm.";
        choice age-spec {

It should say:

      container older-than {
        presence "Age specification";
        description
          "Matches the 'last-changed' leaf in the alarm.";
        choice age-spec {

Notes:

There is no last-status-change leaf in alarm (and it seems there never was).

See also https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/wmCgk0DQq0lG6S_e59W-MKW8EOQ/

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 8632, "A YANG Data Model for Alarm Management", September 2019

Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)

Errata ID: 5953
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Tetsuya Hasegawa
Date Reported: 2019-12-31
Rejected by: Deborah Brungard
Date Rejected: 2020-07-13

Section 3.5.1. says:

   From a resource perspective, an alarm can, for example, have the
   following lifecycle: raise, change severity, change severity, clear,

It should say:

   From a resource perspective, an alarm can, for example, have the
   following lifecycle: raise, change severity, clear,

Notes:


--VERIFIER NOTES--
Per authors and chairs, the current RFC text is correct as it exemplifies how the severity can change multiple times over the lifecycle of an alarm.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search