Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > I propose that the WG adopt this as the -00, and then we change the document > to change this into an RFC7224-style IANA-maintained YANG module. > (In DHC WG, when we did RFC3315bis to make RFC8415 we did a -00 which was > whitespace equivalent to RFC3315 first, and then we amended it)
> As I understand it, we would be creating a Registry with IANA
Considerations,
> and when documents extend the Registry, that IANA writes a new YANG module
> (with a new date) for us.
> I believe that given that the module gets revised, that we don't have to
> worry about enumeration vs leaf/choice/empty. But, if there is some
> advantage to doing it the non-enumeration way, it would be good to
understand
> that.
But, we might want to do a WG Consensus call on the differences.
We might also want to ask a YANG Doctor to come to the ANIMA WG meeting
at the end of the Month, to explain the differences.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
