<[email protected]> wrote: > I support adoption. > (1)(major) However, I think that ietf-voucher module should be reworked > to make use of the structure defined in RFC 8791.
That's a reasonable thing to request.
* Do you consider it to be a bug-fix?
> (2) For the IANA section, even if ietf-voucher was already registered,
> the practice is that the IANA will need to create a new entry when the
> new version of the module will be published. That IANA section should
> ne updated accordingly.
okay, thank you.
> (3) This part from the IANA module should be updated as follows:
> OLD:
> organization
> "IETF ANIMA Working Group";
> contact
> "WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/anima/>
> WG List: <mailto:[email protected]>
> Author: Kent Watsen
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> Author: Max Pritikin
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> Author: Michael Richardson
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> Author: Toerless Eckert
> <mailto:[email protected]>";
> NEW:
> organization
> "IANA";
> contact
> "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
understood.
> (4) Make IANA's actions easy to handle:
> OLD:
> name: iana-voucher-assertion-type
> namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-voucher-assertion-type
> prefix: ianavat
> reference: RFC XXXX
> NEW:
> name: iana-voucher-assertion-type
> namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-voucher-assertion-type
> prefix: ianavat
> maintained by IANA: Y
> reference: RFC XXXX
understood.
> (8) Consider adding an appendix to list the main changes vs. 8366.
okay.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
