IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yang-doctors] Dealing with BFD RFC 9127 client-cfg-parms for PIM, OSPF, ISIS and other BFD clients on some platforms

Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Wed, 10 November 2021 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D163A112A; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:24:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b=Zc03y8Bk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=CwReyzeX
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 49MzVZV7pgc8; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02BC13A10DA; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032265C015E; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 09:24:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 10 Nov 2021 09:24:23 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=date :message-id:to:cc:subject:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh= +cicrLpG81g8xOSKgfEech+w01dHrsbiqaU2SVN8TPo=; b=Zc03y8BkGsQqoSBZ 5lOZU+ALS4WOwk7I9Y9Tvu/iv8O4sx5KRp82jHE0npI3jTe6FxICSidbwU4ohzuy 2t6s6ZZzxKLoymP50qQiNOyYCP9ZT9lh3LATyZIM2KdXFZq0yUKTWtdSeiol6vjo kd8NNq7eB4jPQC28pTxY2R6ABQvtcu//37GuWgb9q/xq0L+0YhCErneYr2HHgqqk rmI7vaSsCF39a5cBm4rH9pQ1spRp1pNoVmJCRRP0z1oY4SJlcywpbAb20z8YiHxy S0BOAYxCqvCRXaz1Q07+c9LxEHFOuFsnXHZFVbvQENNGNYWJKvViu24H78nyMaj+ Z3qXKQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=+cicrLpG81g8xOSKgfEech+w01dHrsbiqaU2SVN8T Po=; b=CwReyzeXDHq0sRGeXAAPK98MkK6zOpJWM5w7jTAu/6FVXRIEy/OUltoGU HHsRix3h/7P4jSlJaA6a6O+ZbNYcd1h4zv6HE1GZaouV4l0uXt/VTTOOIAZKBxbj 2wu2xQ+FFzSyv8kBPn6RU/r2rsVHwVM4ryUiJSCP5zT3CiKZ/UBq6Is/ifHriLMR NtmUofN5TJetzojlEpFKr+YRf+JBo/gNWJM9rUtdQm4cr0xyav8w72s+BClDjDyw D5u41nStNMymHZEIC0mpOc1rwn/NXc2+SAH7xAKX+0vXjOfzbGnFkanZDZ8+PfZk ceER1gSdT5qyvW8aRDc/Ag9C6KHww==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:FtaLYWVyUhDA3F0QK7phiM1WDryifEtvwmVs4J90r7hmzC3CUnid0Q> <xme:FtaLYSmP81iUM7fyDgqNhLcAvg2OwXTWoFnoWGVGj5eNiEMR89H-SxBbSi1PG60UL fwnvD_-ytRZ61UCF0I>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:FtaLYaYifzGAyVtHQrv2_8KuNmGhTr20C4XAa3tvDROyeAOXaERQoz4SYgexvvBjmuXfMB0R7zq8n7-HVyH7Wg79jen_mdJAjA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrudejgdeifecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffkvffuhfgjfhfogggtgfesthhqre dtredtudenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpnrhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdoihgv thhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeitdethfdthfekteelteekve eifefhudduueekvdefleegtdevgefgteefjefgleenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt necurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmsghjodhivghtfhesgeeiieekrdhsvg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:FtaLYdVQLnbWxAi74Jbho-eD7GBVO5qjLmvcgiHcAdBokNk2nP0pfw> <xmx:FtaLYQmN92RdsquvsZTu4YrLY9y5RV_ARmiLTwxyeyO8ZgVbU3ti8g> <xmx:FtaLYSe_T7kNMYNzXKk3qTXYyLz__KSQCNFSxksW9HBk4goPYpMROg> <xmx:FtaLYRDxzoFLuTx_jFS1bZZ9_0gxkwFFsIhjvWjARK_oDU_keaBgWg>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 09:24:21 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 15:24:19 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20211110.152419.1470648213167278293.id@4668.se>
To: jhaas@pfrc.org
Cc: rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org, ladislav.lhotka@nic.cz, rtg-ads@ietf.org, yang-doctors@ietf.org, rrahman@cisco.com
From: Martin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rklund?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <20211110140936.GD16907@pfrc.org>
References: <20211110111825.GB16907@pfrc.org> <20211110.131625.788109340841445931.id@4668.se> <20211110140936.GD16907@pfrc.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/MACTKByBKIU4ZYKMmVCWpk_e6Ig>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Dealing with BFD RFC 9127 client-cfg-parms for PIM, OSPF, ISIS and other BFD clients on some platforms
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 14:24:36 -0000

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 01:16:25PM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote:
> > > The intent is to fast track the -bis.  The diff is trivial.
> > 
> > Ok, but if you can fast-track the bis, is it still important to get the
> > AUTH48-docs out before the bis?
> 
> Our available actions are constrained by the impression that the -bis
> violates the IETF YANG module revision rules.  My impression from this email
> is you're okay with this violation.

I'm not ok with this violation in general, but I am ok with it in this
particular case.  Hence my questions.  If it turns out that in the end
you modify the AUTH48-docs and wait for the bis anyway, then I don't
think this is the right way to go.


/martin


> 
> If you similarly agree that simply shipping the -bis in short order with the
> changes is the Right Thing, that helps.  The ADs can determine if we have
> consensus to proceed with that as the action and we can move forward.
> 
> -- Jeff

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email