Re: [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis-01

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Jan,

I'm clearly not speaking for Mahesh here.


> On Feb 11, 2022, at 9:08 AM, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> OLD:
>      This revision is non-backwards-compatible with the previous revision.
> 
> NEW:
>       This revision is non-backwards compatible with the
>       previous version of this model.
> 
>       This revision adds an 'if-feature' statement called
>       'client-base-cfg-parms' for client configuration parameters.
>       Clients expecting to use those parameters now need to
>       declare the feature to include them.
> 
>       The change was introduced for clients that do not need
>       them, and have to deviate to prevent them from being
>       included.
> 
> Imo, this is a reasonable level of verbosity.

This seems reasonable to me.

> 
> Since it is servers (not clients) that declare support for features, I guess the
> sentence should be something like this:
> 
>       Clients expecting to use those parameters now need to
>       verify that the server declares support for the feature
>       before depending on their presence.

My general advice as a RFC author and a working group chair is to try to avoid restating things that summarize to "it's in the RFC".

Implementations of yang modules are expected to handle capabilities.

-- Jeff