Tom, On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 05:04:24PM +0000, t petch wrote: > On 08/12/2021 17:47, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > >That said, where I think you're leading the discussion is that the > >simplest fix may be to simply re-issue the ietf-bfd-types module > >since that's our only change? > > Well, no. I thought about that and because RFC9127 has seven modules > and five of them import bfd-types then that is five import statements > that should be changed to point to RFC XXXX, not RFC9127, five > modules that if > not updated will mislead in that the message will then be that these five > modules have not been tested with 9127-bis, only with RFC9127; that is > what the reference statement on the import means and I doubt if we can > guess what tooling does what with that information in the wild (and > since this has been hanging around for several years, there may be > many who have proceeded on the basis of the I-D that led to > RFC9127). > > So my take is that those five modules need to be updated and > 9127-bis is the place to do so.
I follow your argument. I have doubts about it as a requirement rather than a nice to have. If it is a requirement to update every single set of yang modules that maintain a non-revision specific import statement but with a softer textual reference, then we have a massive "shake the tree" problem for even trivial updates. That shake the tree exercise is understood for by revision, and I know that discussion is ongoing in IETF to figure out how we best resolve everything. I'll prod the YANG doctors on this point in a separate thread offlist. Beyond that, I acknowledge your points and effective roadmap for updating the document as being a valid one. That said, I'm only the document shepherd rather than an authors. Let's see if they have further inputs. -- Jeff
