Hi Rob, We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial. Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/).
You may review the report at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7647 Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ for further information on how to verify errata reports. Further information on errata can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php. Thank you. RFC Editor/cs > On Sep 18, 2023, at 4:23 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6991, > "Common YANG Data Types". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7647 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: David Martínez García <david.martinezga...@upm.es> > > Section: 3 > > Original Text > ------------- > [...] > > typedef object-identifier-128 { > type object-identifier { > > [...] > > (and other typedefs that appear in the latest revisions of the module) > > Corrected Text > -------------- > [...] > > typedef object-identifier-128 { > type yang:object-identifier { > > [...] > > (and other typedefs that appear in the latest revisions of the module) > > Notes > ----- > In Section 3, the textual definition of the "ietf-yang-types" module > presents, in my opinion, inconsistencies when defining typedefs that point to > other typedefs in the same module: sometimes the value for the "type" key > contains the prefix of the module and sometimes not. Please, see the example > attached. This can also be applied to other typedefs defined in the latest > revisions of the module, such as "date-no-zone" and "time-no-zone". I think > this should be addressed to provide clarification and consistency, and thus > can be extended to other modules and the YANG standard as well. Thanks for > your time. > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6991 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-03) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Common YANG Data Types > Publication Date : July 2013 > Author(s) : J. Schoenwaelder, Ed. > 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
