Re: [yang-doctors] RFC 9127-bis question - impact of reference clauses in an import statement

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

And it it helps, here are the set of diffs w.r.t. RFC 9127 that we are proposing. You might want to ignore the boiler template and the Section name changes, which we will get the RFC editor to fix.



> On Dec 9, 2021, at 2:12 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> [Reference message to issue in thread:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Ajo-ku8EJxiEnZjdkRfdzGIg59A/ ]
> 
> YANG doctors,
> 
> The BFD Working Group is trying to move forward on the RFC 9127-bis work
> that was previously discussed with you.  I believe there is consensus in how
> we will move forward on the modification to the common configuration
> grouping and its associated feature statement.  This strategy was previously
> communicated to you all.
> 
> This is a question about what we put in the -bis document.  Previously, the
> thinking was we did a full re-issue.  Tom Petch, in the thread cited above,
> notes that we minimally can't do part of this because there are modules
> already delegated to IANA.
> 
> The discussion about the what the internet-draft text should include from
> RFC 9127 or not lead to a question I had: Would it not be sufficient to
> simply issue an update to the ietf-bfd-types module where all of the impact
> is isolated?
> 
> Tom's argument is that the form of the import, which contains references to
> RFC 9127, suggest we really want a re-issue so we point to the proper new RFC.
> 
> As an example, from module ietf-bfd:
> :  import ietf-bfd-types {
> :    prefix bfd-types;
> :    reference
> :      "RFC 9127: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
> :       Detection (BFD)";
> :  }
> 
> As best I am able to tell from RFC 7950, § 7.21.4, reference is partially
> meant to be informational.  If it was normative, an update to any module
> imported by another with a reference would require an update.
> 
> Note that this isn't an import by revision.
> 
> My question is thus what are the rules to issue module updates in such
> circumstances?
> 
> Tom and the BFD YANG authors are copied to make sure I haven't
> misrepresented the situation.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors


Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]