> On Jun 4, 2025, at 9:12 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 3, 2025, at 5:30 PM, Reshad Rahman <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> <RR> I do recall that in our discussions we had to have "Updated BFD IANA" >> Module only in 1 document. What I don't remember is whether we considered >> moving it to draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers instead of having it in >> optimizing-authentication. But draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers would >> still depend on bfd-stability since we're moving the documents together. > > The fundamental headache is that there are circular dependencies in the > documents. And, there's also a core dependency on assigning code points in > one or more documents and then having the need to have one document only own > the updated IANA module. > > And, as we discussed, even if we pulled the YANG module out into an uber-YANG > module for the three documents, that only mildly cleans up the dependencies. > That's why we left it in one of the documents. > > If IETF decides it wants to have IANA update these modules incrementally in a > different fashion, we can leverage that mythical alternative methodology. > Meanwhile, the documents reflect our best efforts. The IESG is encouraged to > recommend better alternatives.
And, perversely, my mail client pulls Ketan and Med's response after I posted this. So, we can followup there. :-) -- Jeff
