> New comment: The Security Considerations section suggests that the document
> performs just one action, yet it performs two. Please update the SC section
> so that it's clear about what actions the document performs.
> [Med] You are correct that we have two IANA actions, but the Sec cons does
> not reason with actions but talks about “an update to an IANA registration
> procedure defined in {{!RFC6020}}”, which is correct. We have only one update
> to RFC6020. The second action is a consequence of that update in the registry.
I think that section could be clearer by saying something just like that.
> If this document, in Section 3.1, moves
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-25#section-5.2,
> [Med] This one is not moved. It is still in 8407bis. This is a refresh
> ofhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#autoid-83 (same purpose, same
> reasoning)
>
> Confused. That link points to Section 5 (IANA Considerations).
> [Med] Confirm this is about Section 5 of 8407. That section has the following:
>
> The following assignment was detailed in [RFC6087
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6087>] and has been
> updated by IANA in the "YANG Module Names" registry. This document
> has also been added as a reference for the "YANG Module Names"
> registry itself as it contains the template necessary for
> registration in Appendix B
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#appendix-B>.
>
> which is refreshed in 5.2 of the 8407bis.
Your communication would have been better had you written "This is a refresh of
*the second paragraph* in ...". I just looked at the section as a whole and
noticed that it looked very different.
Kent
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- netmod@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to netmod-le...@ietf.org
