Tom, On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:30:02AM +0000, t petch wrote: > All the instances of the text string '9127' that appear in the I-D > 9127-bis and most of which need to be changed to the text string > 'XXXX'. I stopped counting when I got to forty.
Thanks for clarifying. I've opened a new issue in the github for this. (Issue #8) I had originally thought you'd meant instances in the RFC series. > Also, I think that having two RFC with identical names and a very > slight difference in technical content is likely to induce errors ie > a revised title is needed such as 'YANG Data Model for Bidirectional > Forwarding Direction - Enhanced' or Revised or Augmented or MkII or > some such. And yes, that is another forty changes. I'm personally of mixed opinion on this one. The YANG modules, the thing of main importance here, all contain version strings in their filenames. Similarly, the modules get a revision clause that cover the changes. The description for what is currently listed as revision 2021-12-01 currently says "RFC 9127-bis". This could perhaps use better text. Any specific suggestions? > The IANA Considerations are now a nonsense; I think that IANA need > consulting on what they want to do about whatever happens and > 9127-bis revising accordingly. Issue #9 has been opened to track this. I believe this is mostly a simle matter of requesting IANA to update the previous registrations to point to the RFC-to-be. > And then there are all the things that I have yet to think about - > give me time:-) The feedback and its impact on document quality is appreciated. -- Jeff
