On 30-Sep-21 07:04, Michael Richardson wrote: > On 2021-07-04 6:13 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote: >> Hi, I have converted RFC8366.xml to Markdown, and switched to the latest MT >> makefile, and after a bit of small massage to remove "8366" from the page, >> and point to RFCs which are published, the result is at: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc8366&url2=draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis.txt > ... >> >> I propose that the WG adopt this as the -00, and then we change the document >> to change this into an RFC7224-style IANA-maintained YANG module. > > I have heard verbally from Toerless that he'd like to have the document > include more "changes" before the WG adopts it.
That's for the WG to discuss. What are the proposed changes? > I don't know what might involve. I also think that this is wrong > according to RFC7221. > If the WG has agreed that it needs to do RFC8366bis, then lets do that. RFC7221 is Informational, so just guidelines. It's WG consensus that counts. However, there's no rule about what a "bis" document can or can't do. (Except that it obviously needs "Obsoletes: 8366".) Where's the "Changes from RFC8366" section? We need that, for sure. What differences are there, anyway? I don't see anything significant in the diffs. So why would we want to adopt it? What about https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8366 ? Why is it still only "Reported"? It's presumably correct. Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
