Hi Michael, I checked with the RFC Editor about this. If a table were to appear in, say, Section 3 and then again in the IANA Considerations section, they would prefer to remove one instance of the table. But they wouldn't remove both.
Section 4.8.3 of RFC 7322 mentions that after IANA assigns values, the RFC
Editor checks/updates the corresponding values in the document (IANA
Considerations section included) to make sure they match the registries.
They do remove IANA-maintained YANG modules, where present, given that readers
would need to check the IANA website for the most recent version anyway.
Thanks,
Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager
On 8/19/24, 10:47 AM, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
>> My understanding (and experience) is that when we give IANA the
initial
>> contents, they *take* it, initialize the registry, and then, the RPC
actually
>> removes the table from the document. The IANA registry itself is
>> authoritative, not the document, so DRY.
> That's the opposite of my experience[1]. The draft should say
> *exactly* what IANA is being requested to do. As the draft moves
I can't find an example of this now.
I remember being annoyed when I noticed it, but it made sense.
> Do you have an example of an RFC where registry information has been
> removed? What was left in the "IANA Considerations" section, which is
> mandatory?
The rules (considerations) for the registry were what was left.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
