Hi Jeff, Please check inline below for responses.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 9:04 PM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, §2.12. 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. > KT> Well, it is on the IESG telechat for tomorrow. You are welcome to check my ballot on that here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/ballot/ ... and I am copying this specific point that I already raised below. So, when I suggest you bring this up on netmod, it is because that is the right forum to discuss/debate this and similar points. 3196 4.30.3. Guidance for Writing the IANA Considerations for RFCs Defining 3197 IANA-Maintained Modules <major> What is missing is guidance for future documents (i.e. not RFC IIII) that allocate code points from a registry that is associated with an IANA-maintained YANG module. I guess the instruction for such a document is to not give any specific instruction related to such a module (e.g., don't try to repeat the updated module in appendix or such?) - all of this should be taken care of by IANA automatically based on instructions provided in RFC IIII ? > > > 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. > KT> I have already shared here ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/i1azBBa5dfkZhn14myORsWDMF7o/) at the start of this thread on what needs to be done. I believe that is clear enough. Thanks, Ketan > > 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 > >
