Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
Yes. However, note the open issue Y60: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html#sec-61 /martin > > 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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
