-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RFC 9127-bis question - impact of reference clauses in an
import statement
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:13:13 +0000
On 16/12/2021 22:43, Reshad Rahman wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 09:40:05 AM EST, Martin Björklund
<mbj+i...@4668.se> wrote:
Hi,
Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote:
Tom,
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 09:47:50AM +0000, t petch wrote:
Which begs the question that I think Jeff was asking - what is the
recommendation for updating modules that import modules that undergo a revision?
The point here is that we have RFC9127 with seven modules, five
importing bfd-types from therein, so if we upgrade bfd-types to
provided needed funtionality then it behoves us to make clear IMHO
that this upgrade is ok for the other five, which can be done by
changing the import reference to be 9127-bis and not RFC9127, a one
line, documentation change in each of the five modules (which
unfortunately then need a new revision, date, IANA Considerations
but that is business as usual).
What other WG do is up to other WG. Let's make this I-D right.
Your position is understood.
Martin basically states this is a procedural question:
: What makes this case special is that you plan to (re)publish modules
: with references to the document that you are replacing.
:
: I'm not sure that this is a YANG doctors question... it seems more of
: a procedural issue.
"Special" implies this is a variance from expectations.
The advice being solicited from the YANG doctors is what expectations are.
Martin (and others), is the republish solely to update references unusual?
I have never seen such an update.
Also note that the intention with the reference statement is to refer
to the spec that was current at the time the reference statement was
written. Since there is no import-by-revision, we are explicitly
prepared to handle newer versions of the imported module (provided the
module follow the upgrade rules).
I think this can be compared to references in RFCs. If RFC A has a
reference to RFC B, A doesn't have to be updated if B is updated.
<RR> And in the case of 9127-bis, the modified grouping is not used by any of the modules in that
document (only in the "routing" YANG documents).So spinning a new revision for these BFD
modules just for the sake of updating the reference seems "wasteful". But I have no idea if
there are any rules/guidelines for this kind of change.
End of WG LC and I await a consensus call from the chairs.
I see three options. The worst one is the present I-D, neither flesh
nor fowl.
Publishing something that is clearly not a bis but just includes a new
bfd-types is not so bad but for me leaves a confusing trail behind it.
The two versions of bfd-types will only be a few months apart so I am
comfortable that the later one can be regarded as current when the
others were written, which, as Martin says, is what the reference
statement means. It will mean that RFC9127 has references to RFC9127
for bfd-types while other modules from other WG will have reference a
version of a few months later which will cause some to scratch their
heads in future and wonder what has gone wrong here.
Publishing a genuine 9127-bis with the IANA module excised and the
references updated so that everyone uses the same reference is to me the
clearest statement of what is available and should be used from now on.
Tom Petch
Regards,Reshad (no hat).
/martin
