Hi Amanda, Please see inline.
Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Amanda Baber via RT <iana-iss...@iana.org> > Envoyé : mardi 10 septembre 2024 04:04 > À : kent+i...@watsen.net; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> > Cc : netmod@ietf.org > Objet : [IANA #1373241] RE: [netmod] Regarding draft-ietf-netmod- > rfc8407bis > > > Hi Med, > > Sounds good, but there is an issue with the registration > procedure text at the end: > > > NEW: > > - If a new registration uses an identifier that does not > comply > > with the naming conventions listed in Section 4.3.1, > IANA > > should check if a guidance to generate legal > identifiers was > > supplied in the RFC that specified the initial version > of the > > module. If no such guidance is available, IANA should > check > > the latest revision of the IANA-maintained module for > similar > > patterns. If failed, IANA should seek advice from > relevant > > registry experts (e.g., designated experts for a > registry with > > Expert Review policy (Section 4.5 of [RFC8126]) or > responsible > > Area Director for a registry with IETF Review (Section > 4.8 of > > [RFC8126]) or Standards Action ((Section 4.9 of > [RFC8126]))). > > Mentioning one of two registration procedures that involve an > expert (leaving out Specification Required) but then naming two > procedures that we should associate with the ADs is a little > confusing. Are these examples, or are they inadvertently > incomplete sets? [Med] These are only examples. We would also have to contact the AD about RFC > Required and IESG Approval registrations, and might have to > contact them about First Come First Served registrations, in the > absence of a still-open WG whose chairs we could ask. > > I see that we're effectively being told not to contact the YANG > doctors ourselves, but I'm not sure that the document needs to > tell IANA which parties are associated with different > procedures. > > It could just tell us to "seek advice from relevant registry > experts (e.g., the IESG-designated experts associated with an > Expert Review (Section 4.5 of RFC 8126) registry) or the > responsible Area Director." That would still give us room to find > someone else for FCFS, if appropriate. [Med] Noted. Updated the text as suggested. Thanks. > > thanks, > Amanda ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- netmod@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to netmod-le...@ietf.org
