Hi Alissa, Regarding your comment below on 2.12, I looked at the 4 IANA modules @ https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml: iana-if-type, iana-crypt-hash, iana-routing-types and iana-hardware (from the 4 RFCs you listed below) and they all seem to be using ICANN. I will modify the address in draft-ietf-bfd-yang to the address below.
Regards, Reshad. Postal: ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 United States of America On 2018-07-19, 5:07 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <[email protected]> wrote: Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Looking forward to the discussion of my original DISCUSS in NETMOD. Here it was: I will apologize in advance because this document may be sort of a casualty of this DISCUSS. I should have raised my point below at least two years ago if not four years ago when the first iana-* YANG module was registered, but the thought did not occur to me until now. It gives me some pause to see the name "iana" embedded in the file name, module name, namespace, and prefix of the module being defined in Sec. 2.12. I realize there is precedent here, but I question whether tying these kinds of modules specifically to IANA as the protocol parameter registry operator by name puts them on the most stable deployment footing under all possible circumstances. I am personally pleased as punch with the service we get from IANA, but that doesn't mean "IANA" will always be the name of the registry operator. The more modules that get created with this embedding, the more of them that may need to change in the unlikely event that the name of the registry operator changes. Lots of RFCs would need to change too, but embedding the name extends the potential problem to the modules themselves. It wasn't clear to me whether there is some ops-area-wide convention around the embedding of "iana" in the names of modules to be maintained by IANA. I don't see this specifically referenced in RFC 7950 or RFC 6020. So I'd like to discuss whether a different naming convention could be established and used in this document and others going forward. --- COMMENT: Some further questions on Sec. 2.12: Looking back at the other RFCs that have defined YANG modules to be maintained by IANA (7224, 7317, 8294, 8348), they use two different postal addresses for ICANN. Why? Furthermore, is "ICANN" really the right contact name, or should it be PTI?
