RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Verified (3)
RFC 8407, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", October 2018
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8819
Source of RFC: netmod (ops)
Errata ID: 5693
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mobashshera Rasool
Date Reported: 2019-04-15
Verifier Name: Ignas Bagdonas
Date Verified: 2019-04-30
Section 4.17 says:
Note that the set of features within a module is easily discovered by the reader, but the set of related modules within the entire YANG library is not as easy to identity. Module names with a common prefix can help readers identity the set of related modules, but this assumes the reader will have discovered and installed all the relevant modules.
It should say:
Note that the set of features within a module is easily discovered by the reader, but the set of related modules within the entire YANG library is not as easy to identify. Module names with a common prefix can help readers identify the set of related modules, but this assumes the reader will have discovered and installed all the relevant modules.
Notes:
The word identity is not correct here. It should be identify to give the sentence correct meaning.
Errata ID: 5800
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: tom Petch
Date Reported: 2019-07-31
Verifier Name: Warren Kumari (Ops AD)
Date Verified: 2019-09-06
Section appendix b says:
"WG Web: <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
.....
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
It should say:
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
.....
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Notes:
Appendix A rightly says that these URL should have a scheme of https:
but Appendix B wrongly specifies http:
[WK]: I'm marking this as 'Verified' (instead of "Hold for Document Update") as it is in a template which is likely to be copied and pasted, and this seems like it may get more visibility.
Errata ID: 6899
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mohamed Boucadair
Date Reported: 2022-03-29
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2022-04-06
Section Appendix A says:
o License -- verify that the document contains the Simplified BSD
License in each YANG module or submodule. Some guidelines related
to this requirement are described in Section 3.1. Make sure that
the correct year is used in all copyright dates. Use the approved
text from the latest TLP document, which can be found at:
It should say:
o License -- verify that the document contains the Revised BSD
License in each YANG module or submodule. Some guidelines related
to this requirement are described in Section 3.1. Make sure that
the correct year is used in all copyright dates. Use the approved
text from the latest TLP document, which can be found at:
Notes:
https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/tlp-5/ says:
==
Note: in prior versions of these provisions, the software license was erroneously called the “Simplified BSD License” rather than the “Revised BSD License”, and many documents that refer to these provisions copied the erroneous name. The IETF Trust corrected the error on September 21, 2021. The license text itself was always that of the Revised BSD License and has not changed.
==
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Verified per discussion with John Levine and individuals in the netmod WG. “Simplified” is what was used when RFC 8407 was published. However, this RFC is providing guidance for authors and reviewers of future documents.
Status: Reported (1)
RFC 8407, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", October 2018
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8819
Source of RFC: netmod (ops)
Errata ID: 7416
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mohamed Boucadair
Date Reported: 2023-04-07
Section 4.8 says:
revision "2017-12-11" {
description
"Added support for YANG 1.1 actions and notifications tied to
data nodes. Clarify how NACM extensions can be used by other
data models.";
reference
"RFC 8407: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
Access Control Model";
}
It should say:
revision "2017-12-11" {
description
"Added support for YANG 1.1 actions and notifications tied to
data nodes. Clarify how NACM extensions can be used by other
data models.";
reference
"RFC UUUU: Network Configuration Access Control Model";
}
Notes:
This example is supposed to illustrate the use of revisions in unpublished updates. Having an RFC under the reference clause is inconsistent:
o published: A stable release of a module or submodule. For
example, the "Request for Comments" described in Section 2.1 of
[RFC2026] is considered a stable publication.
o unpublished: An unstable release of a module or submodule. For
example the "Internet-Draft" described in Section 2.2 of [RFC2026]
is considered an unstable publication that is a work in progress,
subject to change at any time.
I suspect that RFC XXXX in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis was erroneously replaced by RFC 8407:
revision "2017-12-11" {
description
"Added support for YANG 1.1 actions and notifications tied to
data nodes. Clarify how NACM extensions can be used by other
data models.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
Access Control Model";
}