Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted etc etc

Thanks for the comments. I (believe I) have addressed the issues raised here, except for the one wrt augments. Wrt to augments, it is not clear to me what when statement you'd like to see since this augment doesn't depend on the value of another leaf node or the protocol-type etc. Or is is just

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted etc etc

On 21/10/2021 23:06, Jeffrey Haas wrote: Tom, I've not hit "publish" yet... On Oct 21, 2021, at 7:39 AM, t petch wrote: On 20/10/2021 22:00, Jeffrey Haas wrote: On Oct 20, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: On Oct 20, 2021, at 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Haas mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wro

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted etc etc

Tom, I've not hit "publish" yet... > On Oct 21, 2021, at 7:39 AM, t petch wrote: > > On 20/10/2021 22:00, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >> >>> On Oct 20, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani >>> wrote: On Oct 20, 2021, at 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Haas >>> > wrote: There

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted etc etc

On 20/10/2021 22:00, Jeffrey Haas wrote: On Oct 20, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: On Oct 20, 2021, at 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Haas mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: There's also a note in the nits that the security considerations netconf boilerplate is pointing to older RFCs, but I ha

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > > >> On Oct 20, 2021, at 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Haas > > wrote: >> >> There's also a note in the nits that the security considerations netconf >> boilerplate is pointing to older RFCs, but I haven't seen updat

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > 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? See Section 3.7.1 of RFC 8407 here

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

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 wrote: > > I did added R

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

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 wrote: > Also, starting from rev-04 (I

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

Also, starting from rev-04 (I think) we incorrectly have RFC9127 as the reference for the revision. I will change it back to . revision 2021-10-15 { description "Initial revision."; reference "RFC 9127: A YANG data model for BFD unsolicited"; } On Wednesday, October 20, 20

Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

$ pyang --ietf --max-line-length 69 ietf-bfd-unsolicited\@2021-10-15.yang ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang:17: warning: imported module "ietf-bfd" not used ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang:22: warning: imported module "ietf-bfd-ip-sh" not used ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang:128: wa