All (Speaking as an author of RFC 8349),
I just looked at this in more detail and I don't think the ietf-mpls.yang model
should be augmenting the /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route RPC. The
intent of the RPC is to return the address-family specific active-route
corresponding to the destination-address. This model attempts to overload this
RPC with a different action all together - returning a route that has the
local-label as an optional attribute. I'd reject the Errata and believe the
augmentation should be removed from ietf-mpl.yang. Whether it is replaced with
a different one is up to the co-authors of ietf-mpls.yang.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/10/20, 2:29 PM, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
[Resend to hopefully pass recipient limit filter]
Hi Tom,
I would be interested to hear from the original authors.
My impression is that this is a technically reasonable change, but I don't
think that an erratum can create a new revision of a YANG module.
If this erratum was processed as "Hold for document update" then would that
be sufficient to do the right thing in the MPLS YANG module?
Regards,
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>
> Sent: 10 August 2020 17:32
> To: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; lho...@nic.cz; Acee
> Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; yingzhen...@huawei.com; war...@kumari.net;
> Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>; joe...@bogus.com;
> kent+i...@watsen.net; lber...@labn.net
> Cc: ts...@juniper.net; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
>
> From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of RFC Errata System
> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
> Sent: 07 August 2020 16:45
>
> <tp>
> This is the erratum of whose arrival I speculated on this list on June
> 16th.
>
> There is a degree of urgency about it. The I-D in question is mpls-base-
> yang, currently in IETF Last Call, which is a Normative dependency of bfd-
> yang which is a Normative dependency for a small mountain of I-D which
> have been waiting a year or so (e.g. ospf-yang).
>
> I suspect that the technically perfect solution would involve a YANG
> union, choice or some such structure but as I said in my Last Call comment
> I can live with a label that contains such as 'address' encompassing such
> as 'label' in the context of forwarding. I take labels to mean what
> labels mean rather than what I might find in a work of reference.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8349,
> "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6251
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Tarek Saad <ts...@juniper.net>
>
> Section: 7
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> The RPC "active-route" is used to retrieve the active route in a RIB.
> RFC8349 defined two AFIs (v4/v6).
>
> draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang is defining a new RIB AFI for MPLS as per
> section 3 in RFC8349.
>
> The RPC has a "MUST" statement that all RIBs must augment input
> parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.
>
> For MPLS RIB, it makes sense to augment with leaf named 'local-label'
> since MPLS routes are identified by MPLS label.
>
> We ask to make the following change:
>
> OLD:
> action active-route {
> description
> "Return the active RIB route that is used for the
> destination address.
>
> Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
> parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.";
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> NEW:
> action active-route {
> description
> "Return the active RIB route that is used for the
> destination address.
>
> Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
> parameters with a suitable leaf that identifies the
> route.";
>
>
> Notes
> -----
>
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8349 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA
> Version)
> Publication Date : March 2018
> Author(s) : L. Lhotka, A. Lindem, Y. Qu
> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source : Network Modeling
> Area : Operations and Management
> Stream : IETF
> Verifying Party : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
