On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:15:46PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 12/18/2017 3:06 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > See RFC 3688 section 4.
> cool, dueling BCPs.
>
> Is there a reason
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14#section-5
> doesn't apply?
>
Searching through a number of RFCs containing YANG modules, I must say
that we are consistently inconsistent. I would give RFC 3688 section 4
authority here since RFC 3688 defined the registry. (Note also that
WGs come and go, the IESG may have a longer lifetime. That said, I
assume that the responsibility for the registration falls into the
hands of the IESG anyway when a WG ceases to exist.)
/js
PS: The IANA registry seems to maintain a pointer to the RFC, there is
not really a registrant column. ;-)
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
