Michael, On 3/1/26 15:13, Michael Richardson wrote:
> My concerns are significantly motivated by the fact that every time a "patch" > RFC for a given subject I work on hits the IESG there's a desire to > RELITIGATE the presence or absence of such considerations in the particularemphasis mine. > patch document, or the thoroughness or lack thereof in the base document that > is being augmented and has been deployed for years. Yes. It would be nice if the IESG could find a better way. I think that we need a better articulated process for -bis documents.
Contrarily, I think -bis documents are an excellent place to fill in the gap for missing operational and security considerations. My specific concern was the usual "patch" documents we do that adds a minor feature on top of a larger base one.
I'm still not thrilled by the idea of "here's giant boilerplate to consider". But that's the challenge of what your instructions are - have you considered this, and how do you convey that you've done so. Devolution to checklist is abhorrent.
-- Jeff (this reply does not address YANG and thus does not include much of a page of YANG security considerations)
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
