Kent Watsen <kent+i...@watsen.net> writes: > All, > >>> That's a bit odd. But perhaps it can be solved by actually not >>> filling in all values in this module, but rather make it a template >>> and instruct IANA to fill it in with the contents of the registry at >>> the time of publication. >> >> OK, so the module template in the RFC couldn't be used at all - this might >> indeed help. > > This is an interesting proposal indeed, and one that may help with the > crypto-types "algorithm" discussion as well. > > Having IANA be able to automatically publish revisions for select > module is something that has been discussed in the past, partially > in NETCONF wrt crypto-types, to eliminate the need for expensive RFC > cycles, for updates that needed as a reaction to other RFCs being > published, which should also have the effect of shortening the time > it takes for those updates to be made.
Another option, also suggested in DNSOP WG, was to enable YANG to refer directly to the IANA registry. > > AFAIK, no such relationship with IANA exists currently anywhere > within the IETF. To move this idea forward, the chairs need to > discuss with the AD. It might aid that discussion if there were an > example template module...anyone want to a stab at one? The problem with this is that we have no formalism for writing such templates. > > Should there be an I-D that lays out the framework for the agreement > with IANA, or would each draft (e.g., crypto-types) lay it out just > for itself? Actually, this sounds like what might come out of the > discussion with the AD, but thoughts now are welcome to. How about preparing an initial revision of the module, without writing any RFC, and hand it over to IANA to be published as a supplement to the registry? Lada > > Kent // as co-chair -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
