> On 30 Jun 2015, at 16:11, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Lada, > > On 6/30/15, 4:52 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> is it OK that 6020bis again defines “YANG Module Names” registry? It was >> already defined in RFC 6020 so I’d say it shouldn’t be repeated. > > Normally when an RFC is obsoleted by a bis version, the original IANA > considerations are retained. At least that has been my experience both for > bis versions that I have authored and bis version that I have reviewed.
OK, thanks. Lada > > Thanks, > Acee > > > >> >> Also, the two registered namespace URIs should IMO be >> >> URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:yin:1.1 >> URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:1.1 >> >> Lada >> >> -- >> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
