9127 is the RFC-to-be. I think that's likely to stay. There's also a note in the nits that the security considerations netconf boilerplate is pointing to older RFCs, but I haven't seen updated boilerplate issued?
-- Jeff > On Oct 20, 2021, at 2:30 PM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > I did added RFC9127 based on Jeff information (in many places of XML as > comment) > > Fixed reference in the YANG to accommodate new number. > > Fell free to comment it out so RFC editor can quickly adjust :) > > Best, > R. > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:19 PM Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com > <mailto:res...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > Also, starting from rev-04 (I think) we incorrectly have RFC9127 as the > reference for the revision. I will change it back to YYYY. > > revision 2021-10-15 { > description "Initial revision."; > reference "RFC 9127: A YANG data model for BFD unsolicited"; > } > > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021, 10:47:05 AM EDT, Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org > <mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: > > > $ pyang --ietf --max-line-length 69 ietf-bfd-unsolicited\@2021-10-15.yang > ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang > <mailto:ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang>:17: warning: imported module > "ietf-bfd" not used > ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang > <mailto:ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang>:22: warning: imported module > "ietf-bfd-ip-sh" not used > ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang > <mailto:ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang>:128: warning: line length 71 > exceeds 69 characters > > The following line needs to be split: > "BFD IP single-hop interface unsolicited top level container"; > >
