So, I won’t prolong what is now becoming an administrative discussion – except to say:
If the standards part of the document is the YANG model, then the draft should be renamed to indicate that it is a YANG document – and the description of the implementation behavior (Section 2 mostly) is just there as supportive context. Otherwise, we have a case of the tail wagging the dog… But, I leave it to others to decide what to do. For me, the most important thing is that the content is good. It might be good to have a statement in the draft that specifies no protocol changes are introduced – which I gather will be discussed as part of reviewing Greg’s comments. Les From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:24 AM To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16 August, 2020) Indeed, draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited was informational and with the addition of the YANG module draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicted was changed to standards track. Regards, Reshad (no hat). From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 5:44 AM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16 August, 2020) Hi Les, While shifting to Informational would be perhaps ok protocol wise - isn't it common practice in IETF that any draft (or at least most of them) which define a YANG model is a Standards Track document ? I hope you are not suggesting to split this one into two :). Thx, R. On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 5:36 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Sorry to be tardy in responding... As I stated almost 2 years ago when this draft was introduced: a)The problem the draft is addressing is real and the solution useful b)There are implementations which have already addressed this problem with no interoperability issues c)I do not see that any changes have been made to the BFD protocol (e.g. RFC 5881) Therefore, I think this should go forward - but as Informational. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org>> On > Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:45 PM > To: rtg-...@ietf..org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16 > August, 2020) > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:21:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > Working Group, > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/ > > > > With apologies to the authors of BFD unsolicited, this document is past due > > for Working Group Last Call. The primary holdup on the document had > been > > last minute interaction with the RFC Editor with regard to its impact on the > > BFD Yang model. That work had completed some time ago. (The Yang > model, > > however, is still lingering in MISREF state.) > > > > This begins a last call period ending on 16 August. > > The last call period has ended with a few comments from Greg and Raj that > should be addressed before we continue. > > It'd also be helpful to hear from additional reviewers before we advance > this document. > > -- Jeff
