From nobody Fri Feb 11 06:18:20 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25AEC3A0FDF; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:18:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id poVLjCZUWDnb; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:18:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A760F3A0FD2; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:18:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B11E1E334; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:18:05 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis-01 From: Jeffrey Haas In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:18:04 -0500 Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani , tom petch , YANG Doctors , "rtg-bfd@ietf. org" , "draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis.all@ietf.org" , "last-call@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3AFF3B0E-6A8C-46B9-A575-7373A05110A7@pfrc.org> References: <164388736861.32491.11649774516476095771@ietfa.amsl.com> <61FCF2DA.7080706@btconnect.com> <22A163B4-F2B0-48EF-8334-AD234F886327@cisco.com> To: "Jan Lindblad (jlindbla)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) Archived-At: X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:18:12 -0000 Jan, I'm clearly not speaking for Mahesh here. > On Feb 11, 2022, at 9:08 AM, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) = wrote: > OLD: > This revision is non-backwards-compatible with the previous = revision. >=20 > NEW: > This revision is non-backwards compatible with the > previous version of this model. >=20 > 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. >=20 > The change was introduced for clients that do not need > them, and have to deviate to prevent them from being > included. >=20 > Imo, this is a reasonable level of verbosity. This seems reasonable to me. >=20 > Since it is servers (not clients) that declare support for features, I = guess the > sentence should be something like this: >=20 > 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