Ketan,
> On Jun 4, 2025, at 11:05 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Allow me to step in to ensure that Med and Jeff are talking about the same > thing. > > Med is talking only about the IANA maintained module for ietf-bfd-types. As am I. > > Jeff (I guess?) is talking about the BFD YANG module from RFC 9127. The maintained module was defined in RFC 9127, ยง2.12. Any content additions to that module maintained by IANA cover the fact that it was defined in RFC 9127 under one set of prior maintenance rules. The fact that you're not understanding that point suggests you should review RFC 9127. The landscape has changed. That's fine. Participants in netmod will likely recall I raised issues about how maintenance works some time ago. I find the updates in 8407-bis to be reasonable for new modules. Their homework for how those rules are enforced on previously created modules is not done. Their procedures for what a maintenance request needs to look like needs improvement. Ideally Med and Mahesh will proxy those points toward their last call inputs. > However, Jeff, if you are talking about the following from my email, then > please take it to the netmod list :-) Not if I can help it. My personal goal here is "tell us what text to paste in the drafts to make the YANG issues go away at the IESG level". I'm telling you that your requests are not sufficiently clear or traceable to what you're trying to RFC in netmod as the new requirements. Frankly, send patches. All drafts are in github. Alternatively, if we're hung up in YANG process hell, simply deleting the YANG modules in these drafts remains an option. However, the issues identified in this thread remain ones that need to be dealt with and will impact other IANA maintained modules that are operating under prior boilerplate. BFD just has had the misfortune to trip across those issues. -- Jeff
