Re: [netmod] IANA registries
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. 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? 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. Kent // as co-chair___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
[netmod] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04: (with COMMENT)
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext/ -- COMMENT: -- A fine extension. Just three editorial nits: -- Section 1 — There is no assumption that a YANG data structure can only be used as a top-level abstraction, instead of nested within some other data structure. It’s a little odd to use “instead of” after “there is no assumption”; I can’t explain it fully, but it feels odd to this native English speaker. I suggest this: NEW There is no assumption that a YANG data structure can only be used as a top-level abstraction, and it may also be nested within some other data structure. END similar to the existing YANG "augment" statement. Make it “similarly”. — Section 1.1.1 — The following terms are defined in the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. and are not redefined here: The period after the citation should be a comma. ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
