On Aug 5, 2025 at 3:56:59 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim,
>
> This is one single "document" serving as a configuration example/unit
> test.  You wouldn't necessarily want to split the individual sections into
> separate documents and do one-by-one commits in netconf.
>

That makes sense, we’re just having a minor terminology conflict here.
These are in XML and XML defines a “document” as the stuff between a start
 and end tag tag like <key-chains> … </key-chains>. So from the XML PoV
that example is 3 documents. And most XML software will only read one
“document” at a time.  If people typically use software that
accepts/requires multiple XML documents squashed together like that, then
OK, but I think it should be at least mentioned?

Even putting a blank line between the XML documents in the example would
reduce the friction.

And, this is just a nit. -T



> -- Jeff
>
>
> On Aug 5, 2025, at 5:37 PM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Oops, as with the other doc in this series, the examples e.g. A.1 in this
> case, contain multiple XML documents squashed together, which I think hurts
> readability. [This is a nit.] -T
>
> On Aug 5, 2025 at 2:32:22 PM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don’t see any problems. -T
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2025 at 12:49:23 PM, David Dong via RT <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Tim Bray, Martin Thomson (cc: bfd WG),
>>>
>>> As the designated experts for the ns registry, can you review the
>>> proposed registration in draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-28 for
>>> us? Please see:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication/
>>>
>>> The due date is August 19th.
>>>
>>> If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication,
>>> we'll make the registration at:
>>>
>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/
>>>
>>> Unless you ask us to wait for the other reviewer, we’ll act on the first
>>> response we receive.
>>>
>>> With thanks,
>>>
>>> David Dong
>>> IANA Services Sr. Specialist
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to