Hi Mahesh, (And hoping not to tread on Éric’s toes here…)
On Jan 14, 2025, at 11:55 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: …snip… 2. While the YANG security considerations boilerplate update request seems otherwise reasonable, the desired format creates a MISREF. This is a more general issue than just this specific document and is unlikely to be an intended side effect. We await his advice on how to reconcile that issue. What aspect creates a MISREF? The contents of the template or where the template reside? The latter can be an informative reference. No? Your request was to "adjust my text to reflect those changes". The updated document and section referenced leads with content in its CODE, again: "This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7 of [RFCAAAA]." We call this sort of thing "boilerplate" because the expectation is you work from the content verbatim rather than "by inspiration". If your request is "go ahead and replace RFCAAAA with the current version of the draft text and cite it informationally, but otherwise use that format" - I can do so. However, what I would expect the procedure to be is to copy the RFCAAAA and cite the draft normatively which would create a MISREF until the document is published as an RFC. The problem we have is that the template text in Section 3.7 of RFC 8407 is wrong. For example, it cites Secure Shell (SSH) as [RFC6242], which is incorrect. SSH is [RFC4252], whereas RFC6242 is “Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)." That is what the template in rfc8407-bis is trying to correct. RFCAAAA has been cited as informative [1] by plenty of documents, but none of them are RFCs as yet. Besides, some cite it normatively also. As such, I will have to defer to the more experienced ADs on this thread to see if they think that it can be cited informatively. If not, then unfortunately, we have no option but to go with MISSREF as the only option. Cheers. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/referencedby/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/referencedby/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E6k-wR_DYu5u4K9ljHWxBOyFuuGz-t61gbVF-Gu5H9oXtRwx2JRNLadN9-u_MFFkcoXIC75MSUbgQDGOCPUx$> I think you mean “references the draft” not RFCAAAA. Let’s take a look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang/ since that recently passed IESG review and therefore is presumably “good enough”. I guess your suggestion that the present draft should emulate that one in terms of its citation style. For convenience, here’s what that one has: “This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-20.html#I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis>].” In other words, what Jeff said: If your request is "go ahead and replace RFCAAAA with the current version of the draft text and cite it informationally, but otherwise use that format" - I can do so. AFAICT from trying to unpack this conversation, yes that is your request, yes the IESG has approved documents with that citation style, yes Jeff should go ahead and do that. Please yell if that’s not right. —John
