Hi Alissa, On 10/12/17, 9:20 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-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-rtgwg-routing-types/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >This is a small thing, but in general I think it would be preferable not >to >embed the name "iana" in identifiers that can be consumed >programmatically (the >namespace URN and module name). What distinguishes the iana-routing-types >module seems to be that the types define values for address family >identifiers, >not the fact that the registries containing those identifiers happen to be >administered by IANA. If somebody else administered those registries it >would >have no effect on the contents of the module. It is only the name of the module and not the type identifiers themselves. This precedence of a separate iana-xxx module was set in RFC 7224 and was specifically requested during draft development (RTG WG and NETMOD WG). I don’t think now is the right time to change it. Thanks, Acee > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
