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. 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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
