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

[Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>]

Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 03:24:19PM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote:
> > I'm not ok with this violation in general, but I am ok with it in this
> > particular case.  Hence my questions.
> 
> Understood.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> So, your preference is "ship AUTH48 docs unchanged, even though it'd have a
> potentially redundant 'feature bfd'"?

Of course my preference is to not violate the upgrade rules, if
possible.

1.  publish the auth48-docs now with redundant "bfd" feature
2.  publish the auth48-docs now and remove the redundant "bfd" feature
3.  remove the redundant "bfd" feature and wait for -bis

I am not sure I understand what the proposal is at this point (as I
understood it, your original proposal was (1), but also w/o "bfd" in
-bis).

With (2), the published docs won't be very useful until the -bis is
published, right?

In the case of (3), I think it is better to make a proper fix to -bis.

And in the case of (1), you could as well introduce redundant
"client-cfg-param" features (as I suggested earlier), and avoid the
proposed -bis YANG upgrade rule violation.

Anyway, if you still decide to go with (1) or (2), I am ok with the
proposed -bis.  (I prefer (2) over (1)).



/martin