[Removed RFC Editor.] Thanks Acee!
I am marking the report as “Hold for Document Update” because the resolution is not to simply correct the text, but the model requires a revision. Thanks! Alvaro. On February 11, 2022 at 1:13:11 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) ([email protected]) wrote: This is a legitimate problem for 0.0.0.0/0 given that all components of a list key are required. In the case of a prefix-list, the prefix and mask length limits are all part of the key and, hence, required. It will need to be fixed in a BIS version or augmentation allowing separate list dependent on what is specified (such is done in our Cisco IOS-XE native model): https://github.com/YangModels/yang/blob/master/vendor/cisco/xe/1771/Cisco-IOS-XE-ip.yang#L2888 It would be nice if YANG supported lists with variable length keys. Thanks, Acee On 2/10/22, 12:10 PM, "RFC Errata System" <[email protected]> wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9067, "A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6844 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Kris Lambrechts <[email protected]> Section: 7.2. grouping prefix Original Text ------------- leaf mask-length-upper { type uint8 { range "1..128"; } Corrected Text -------------- leaf mask-length-upper { type uint8 { range "0..128"; } Notes ----- With the original definition, it is not possible to specify an exact match for the default routes (0.0.0.0/0 and ::/0) which is a valid use case. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC9067 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-31) -------------------------------------- Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Publication Date : October 2021 Author(s) : Y. Qu, J. Tantsura, A. Lindem, X. Liu Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Routing Area Working Group Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
