[Note - re-send to fix bfd list address issue.] On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:13:13AM +0000, t petch wrote: > End of WG LC and I await a consensus call from the chairs.
And Happy Holidays to you as well! > 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. The delays in iteration as we've sought out the wisdom of the YANG doctors has meant we've not seen progress in the Working Group mail list. That said, you - as the sole party really expressing much opinion - have continued to see that involvement with them. For the Working Group as a whole, this call ends in "No Consensus". The authors are currently proceeding with a full update to RFC 9127 as a -bis largely following the discussed pattern of "keep the bulk of the contents, remove the IANA section, update the references". Also for the Working Group as a whole, we did not get much response from the YANG doctors and had a single response from Martin Björklund. He didn't see a strong reason to re-issue the full RFC. That said, he also considered our desire to do so to be a "procedural" one. Given the lack of strong opinions at this time, the authors have been given latitude to do their next version as they please. That was discussed above. Once we have a full update, we'll re-open the WGLC and target mid January to attempt to get broader IETF involvement. -- Jeff
