Aijun,
> On Apr 6, 2023, at 8:53 PM, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: >> Providing additional detail to help illustrate the mechanism would be >> in-scope and perhaps helpful. Did you have any explicit recommendations for >> the text? > [WAJ] How about to refer the style of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-00#secti > on-8? That seems reasonable. Let's see what the authors say. >>> Is there any other better style to point out the update to RFC5880? >> >> Unfortunately, this is a common problem for internet-drafts that impact >> protocol state machinery. We have either the option of trying to issue a >> "patch" on the draft, as we're doing here, or do a -bis of the base RFC to >> more cleanly integrate the changes. > [WAJ] How about to give the RFC also the version attribute like the draft? > That is to say, for such "patch" or verbose text update, once the proposed > draft is published, the updated contents will be incorporated into the base > RFC automatically(no need to the overall long procedures for the bis > document), but give its one new version number? The bit RFC document can be > labelled with the source that the updates are coming from. > Maybe this should be discussed in more general scope? > The final bis RFC document will be more easily referred and readable. Using IEEE documents as an example, if there is an update to the base document, all of the changes are included in it. If we ever do a RFC 5880-bis, or potentially do work to advance BFD to Internet Standard, this might be reasonable to do. For now, the document is consistent with procedures we see in other working groups. -- Jeff
