Hi Mahesh, all,
About the IANA changes:
> These changes are significant and are beyond editorial changes. For
> example:
>
> The previous version of this section had a paragraph on:
>
> When the "iana-foo" YANG module is updated, a new "revision"
> statement with a unique revision date must be added in front of the
> existing "revision" statements. The "revision" statement MUST
> contain both "description" and "reference" substatements as follows.
>
> Where is that covered now? I see some instructions in Section 5.3 and
> 5.3.1, but I am not sure it is the same.
>
> The same is true for the description sub statement.
The reference substatement requirement might be implied in 5.3.1 by the
description of its required contents, but the description substatement only
comes up in the "Requirements Subject to Customization" subsection in the IANA
Considerations. Making this the first bullet point in 5.3.1 ("Requirements for
All [IANA-Maintained] Modules") could fix this:
* When the "iana-foo" YANG module is updated, a new "revision"
statement with a unique revision date needs to be added in front of
the existing revision statements. The "revision" statement MUST
contain both "description" and "reference" substatements.
What prompted this suggestion was seeing the various issues with the template
in draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer-41, Section 10.1 (where it was added after the
telechat). And looking at it more closely, every time an IANA-maintained module
needs to be updated, that template model would have IANA reading through quite
a bit of text to check for generally-unlikely changes, which would be easier
for us to miss as well as the authors. I think it makes more sense for us and
the authors to move rules that won't change and rules that need to be
customized in the template if they do change (whatever those might be) to this
document's IANA Considerations section.
thanks,
Amanda
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
