Thanks Jurgen.
I agree, I have rejected this errata.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Jürgen Schönwälder
> Sent: 29 July 2022 17:21
> To: RFC Errata System
> Cc: war...@kumari.net; Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
> kent+i...@watsen.net; joe...@bogus.com; lber...@labn.net;
>
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6991,
"Common YANG Data Types".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7062
--
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Reported by:
Since the ipv4-address-no-zone type is derived from the ipv4-address
type and the ipv4-address type has the detailed pattern, there is no
need to repeat the details. An ipv4-address value has to satisfy both
the ipv4-address-no-zone pattern and the ipv4-address pattern.
I believe this errata
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/eid7062
--
Type: Technical
Reported by: Mazhar Rana
Fries, Steffen wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification. This means we don't have to change
> anything in either BRSKI-PRM and constraint voucher, resp. in the
> general approach we use the voucher.
Yes!
I was worred that there were dragons in the future, but seems not.
--
Michael
Hi Michael,
Thank you for the clarification. This means we don't have to change anything in
either BRSKI-PRM and constraint voucher, resp. in the general approach we use
the voucher.
Best regards
Steffen
> -Original Message-
> From: Anima On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent:
