On 12/18/2017 4:11 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Lou Berger <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 12/18/2017 04:01 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:35:55PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > > > > > > Given the context (YANG module, and this WG), I think it > should be > > > 6087bis (which is the same as 6087 in this respect). > > > > Does RFC 6087 formally update RFC 3688? > > > > > > Not intentionally. > > The 3688 text should probably be used instead of 6087bis. > > > yikes. really? so you think rfc6087 and the netmod RFCs were wrong? > > > Not wrong, but the more generic text applies to all WGs, > not just NETMOD WG. The YANG module contact info > has the WG details. Since the NETMOD WG is long-lived, > it may be better to list NETMOD WG. It doesn't seem to matter > since this info is not in the registry anyway. >
Sigh. Sounds like a useless line. I guess the most important thing on this inconsequential point is that we be consistent. So, I guess this means another update to 6087bis, I know you have one in the works in any case. How about publishing this change and other's that have been discussed on the list so that we can all see the current state. I'll push submit on entity and we can always update it during IESG processing if needed... Thanks, Lou ... _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
