Hi Med, Sounds good, but there is an issue with the registration procedure text at the end:
> NEW: > - If a new registration uses an identifier that does not comply > with the naming conventions listed in Section 4.3.1, IANA > should check if a guidance to generate legal identifiers was > supplied in the RFC that specified the initial version of the > module. If no such guidance is available, IANA should check > the latest revision of the IANA-maintained module for similar > patterns. If failed, IANA should seek advice from relevant > registry experts (e.g., designated experts for a registry with > Expert Review policy (Section 4.5 of [RFC8126]) or responsible > Area Director for a registry with IETF Review (Section 4.8 of > [RFC8126]) or Standards Action ((Section 4.9 of [RFC8126]))). Mentioning one of two registration procedures that involve an expert (leaving out Specification Required) but then naming two procedures that we should associate with the ADs is a little confusing. Are these examples, or are they inadvertently incomplete sets? We would also have to contact the AD about RFC Required and IESG Approval registrations, and might have to contact them about First Come First Served registrations, in the absence of a still-open WG whose chairs we could ask. I see that we're effectively being told not to contact the YANG doctors ourselves, but I'm not sure that the document needs to tell IANA which parties are associated with different procedures. It could just tell us to "seek advice from relevant registry experts (e.g., the IESG-designated experts associated with an Expert Review (Section 4.5 of RFC 8126) registry) or the responsible Area Director." That would still give us room to find someone else for FCFS, if appropriate. thanks, Amanda _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
