Belated thanks for your feedback.
I will proceed with the authors for the next step to submit the draft to
the IESG for publication.
Best,
-- Benno
On 10/07/2019 23:41, bert hubert wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:56:26PM +0200, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>> >From the feedback on the mailing
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
They should not actually be reading the RFC but get the latest revision of the
module from this page:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml
You are asking for text to go into an RFC, which you then say they
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Wouldn't this define what you need, without hardcoding all the valid
values from the snapshot of the IANA registry?
This would instruct the implementor to go to the IANA registry, notice
there what is obsoleted/deprecated, and they will know they
Hiya,
On 10/10/2019 03:52, Martin Thomson wrote:
> There's an interesting (web-only) effort looking at a similar
> problem: https://github.com/krgovind/first-party-sets There, the
> goal is to establish commonality for the purposes of sharing state
> (and fate).
Yes, I saw that recently. I
Paul Wouters writes:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>>> Speaking for myself, as long as we are not populating RFCs with
>>> obsoleted DNS data or just create RFC with copies of IANA registries,
>>> I'm fine with helping on a document. But not if it is a blind copy
>>> and paste
Paul Wouters writes:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> (added IESG to CC:)
>
>>> We don't want to have to update the RFC every time the registry is updated.
>>> Could the RFC just describe exactly how to to convert the registry to YANG?
>>> Then it won't need updates.
>>
>> Only
