On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:03 -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > On 10 Oct 2019, at 09:55, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > > 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 > > (implementors) should not read. Clearly then the text should not go > > into the RFC. > > I'm not sure I fully understand the concern, here. > > When a document instructs the IANA to create a registry, those instructions > contain the initial rows that should seed the registry along with directions > about how the registry is to be maintained following creation. Is this > document fundamentally different from that?
IMO, it isn't. The purpose is also stated in the text, perhaps more explanations can be added here and there. > > Has anybody actually asked PTI what they think the best way of doing this > would be? I haven't, based on the precedent of RFC 7224 I took for granted that IANA is happy with the current workflow. Lada > > > Joe > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
