> On 23 Jan 2017, at 16:51, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> 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 backslash sequences in double-quoted strings in their YANG > modules. > > New: > > The interpretation of any character other than 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.
+1 Otherwise I like the text. Lada > > > Thanks, > Rob > > > On 23/01/2017 15:41, Benoit Claise wrote: >> On 1/23/2017 4:33 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>> Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>>>> On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>>>>> <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> 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 1.1 fixes the ambiguity in YANG 1 but backporting this fix to >>>>>>>> YANG 1 is a change of YANG 1, i.e., it might turn a conforming >>>>>>>> implementation into a non-conforming implementation. Hence, this may >>>>>>>> go beyond the scope of an errata. >>>>>>> But it is not really the case here because it cannot be decided what >>>>>>> conforming means. I chose YANG 1.1 behaviour for my JS parser, and I >>>>>>> don't think it is less conforming than any other. >>>>>> Exactly. But other interpretations are legal as well. We can not >>>>>> retroactively turn so far conforming implementations of the RFC into >>>>>> non-conforming implementations (via an errata that introduces a MUST >>>>>> that was not there in the beginning). >>>>>> >>>>>>> This would be fine for the "Notes" part but RFC Errata require also >>>>>>> "Original Text" and "Corrected Text". Any suggestion for this? >>>>>> Corrected Text >>>>>> ------------- >>>>>> Within a double-quoted string (enclosed within " "), a backslash >>>>>> character introduces a special character, which depends on the >>>>>> character that immediately follows the backslash: >>>>>> >>>>>> \n new line >>>>>> \t a tab character >>>>>> \" a double quote >>>>>> \\ a single backslash >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> OK, this looks good. Benoit, will you first reject the existing >>>>> errata? >>>> Instead of rejected, I modified the errata 4911. >>>> A final check please before I approve it. >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4911 >>> Hmm, I still just see the orignal errata text when I follow this link. >> Now saved :-) >> >> B. >>> >>> >>> /martin >>> . >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> netmod@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> . >> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
