Hi John, > On Jan 15, 2025, at 12:23 AM, John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/ > <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.
That was my suspicion too, but I did not think of checking the RFC Editor queue for an example. Thanks for confirming. Cheers. > > —John Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
