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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Martin,

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 09:18:14AM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> First I want to make sure that I understand the proposal correctly.
> 
> A. Is it correct that you want to do a bis of 9127 so that you don't have
> to touch the three (?) documents that are in AUTH48?

That my proposal.

> B. Is it ok to do modifications to the AUTH48-docs, as long as they
> don't have to wait for a 9127-bis?

The preference is to not do this.  It'd cause an inconsistency in
maintainance over the long term.

> With the proposal from Mahesh (define the "bfd" feature in bfd-types),
> you either will have 4 versions of the "bfd" feature, or you would
> have to modify the AUTH48-docs, AND have them wait for a 9127-bis (in
> which case it would have been better to deprecate "client-cfg-parms"
> and define a new grouping with the if-feature statements).

Understood.  It'd be ideal to not have to touch the AUTH48 documents.  That
said, removing redundancy seems like it might be best if we must touch them
at all.

> If you publish the AUTH48-docs and then publish a 9127-bis with a
> modified "client-cfg-parms" as proposed, doesn't this mean that
> implementations still have to wait for 9127-bis?  And if this is the
> case, you could as well wait with all docs?

The intent is to fast track the -bis.  The diff is trivial.

-- Jeff