I would prefer this as well – but if that violates some YANG process in the IETF please do make sure the draft clearly states that there are no protocol changes.
Les From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 8:09 PM To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigour...@nokia.com>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16 August, 2020) An informational document that also has a management/YANG part included would IMHO be the right outcome. Regards, Jeff On Aug 18, 2020, at 19:38, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Jeff and Les, In general I prefer to have the 2 together (here’s the protocol details and here’s how it’s managed), IMHO there’s benefit in having the 2 together since the YANG discussions are happening while we’re in the thick of the protocol discussions. I am actually not keen to end up with 2 docs, RFC XXX and RFC YYYY: YANG for XXXX with 2 different lifecycles, by the time the YANG is done people aren’t interested anymore because the protocol spec is done. I brought this up some time ago with RTG AD and OPS AD, but I don’t think there was any conclusion. In this specific case, I agree that there’s no protocol changes. So with 2 documents, are you proposing that the BFD spec should be informational and the YANG standards track? Or both informational? If it’s the latter, I’d rather they be in the same doc. Regards, Reshad ( no hat). From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 9:01 PM To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigour...@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com>> 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) IMHO - It isn’t right that presence of YANG defines document’ designation track. The common practice is that if the draft in question doesn’t require any protocol changes it should aim for Informational track (or BCP). https://ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-experimental/ I’d rather have 2 separate documents. In general, given that YANG documents life cycle is quite different from that of protocol ones, it is perhaps a good practice to keep them separate. I have included Martin (Routing AD for BFD) Cheers, Jeff On Aug 18, 2020, 4:24 AM -0700, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rrahman=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>, wrote: 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
