Re: [Teas] te-types-bis was Re: IANA managed modules for TE object types

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for raising this issue which has not been previously discussed but which needs to be sorted out

The intention of the draft is not to do a -bis but just to define tiny updates to the ietf-te-types module defined in RFC 8776

You can read more about the intention in the previous version of the draft:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-busi-teas-te-types-update-01

We have discussed this issue during the IETF 113 and the suggestion was to defined within the I-D only the changes, as an update not as a bis, but still to include the whole YANG module within the main body (you can check the slides and the minutes of the meeting for further details)

The diffs shown in that version make it clear that the technical content added by this draft to RFC 8776 is really tiny

For this reason, I think it is not necessary to copy in this draft all the references used in the parts of the YANG module that are not updated by this document: RFC 8776 (with all its normative definitions) will still remain and be marked as updated by this draft once it is published as an RFC

However, if there are some references in the code updates then these references should be added to the draft

What do you or other people in TEAS WG think about this?

Thanks, Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t petch <[e-mail]>
> Sent: giovedì 19 maggio 2022 17:41
> To: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>; Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Cc: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> Subject: te-types-bis was Re: [Teas] IANA managed modules for TE object
> types
> 
> On 18/05/2022 11:55, t petch wrote:
> > p.s. the revised te-types needs work.  It lacks several dozen
> > references and needs action by IANA.
> 
> i.e. wherever RFC8776 has RFC8776, you need RFCXXXX (as in IANA
> Considerations)
> 
> and RFC8776 has loads of necessary references for the YANG module which
> have gone missing, not sure how or why, but I think them necessary.
> 
> Tom Petch