Hi Sandy, My sense from the discussion on this thread is that there is no appetite for making any more changes to the draft. I am sorry.
Your examples would still be helpful, and we can discuss other ways to educate YANG developers on the right way to add a reference statement, including putting some of those examples on a wiki. Is the draft otherwise ready tor publication? Cheers. > On Feb 20, 2026, at 11:51 AM, Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > > Thanks for your thoughtful reply. To clarify, we understand that the > examples were not discussed in the working group and would be happy to > provide some examples for discussion at a later date (separately from this > document). > > Thanks, > Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > >> On Feb 20, 2026, at 10:59 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Since there seems to be a strong desire to fix this, Kent, as a shepherd, >> would you have a problem pulling this document out of the RFC Editor queue, >> having a quick discussion in the WG around just this change, doing a short >> consensus call and sending it back to me. No other change should be >> entertained at this point. >> >> In the above example, in my opinion (as a individual contributor) >> >> - a reference should be provided when referring to a RFC, rather than >> burying it in the description statement. That reference should come in the >> form of a “RFC XXXX: <Title of the RFC> >> - a Section should be referenced by its number >> >> Having the title of the draft helps those who do not have a map of RFC >> numbers to titles. YANG modules outside the draft, do not have luxury of the >> Normative/Informative References sections being available handily. > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
