<[email protected]> wrote: >> > (3) This part from the IANA module should be updated as follows: >> >> I did the rest of your suggestions, 3-7. I'm a bit surprised at >> changing the YANG module contact info. Do I do that for both modules, >> or only the one that I want IANA to maintain?
> [Med] The comment applies only for the IANA-maintained module.
I have fixed the yang modules so that only the iana maintained modules is
given the IANA/ICANN Address.
This is in the draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-00 document which is waiting for
WG chair to approve.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I do think it is better to maintain the enum rather than identities
> given that the document talks about future cbor mapping, for which
> compact encoding may be needed. If this was transformed into
> identities, the assertion attribute must be prefixed with
> “iana-voucher-assertion-type”.
I think you are saying that we should put "value" statements in so that when
we serialize as CBOR, we use integers rather than strings?
Qin Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> [Qin Wu] Thanks for clarification, I believe your comment is relate to
> Lada's proposal
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/hxy7gKJ13yA0L_PYopb7usql870/
> Yes, this proposal did work for me, which automate process not only for
> IANA registries update, but also for IANA maintained YANG module
> update, but I am not sure whether this proposal have been fully
> accepted and implemented.
It seems like a good thing to reduce amount of work for IANA, but I'm unclear
what, if anything, I need to do.
--
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
