Guy Harris <gharris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The descriptions of many link-layer types are either 1) too long or 2)
> insufficient to fully describe the link-layer type or 3) both(!).
> The descriptions should be short, and the entry should have, as
> a reference, a web page that gives a complete description. Some
> entries already have that.
I am much less concerned about getting the exact information in than you are,
and more concerned that we get over this hump.
I accept that not every entry will be fully described; and that's okay.
As for the the width and contents.
My understanding (and experience) is that when we give IANA the initial
contents, they *take* it, initialize the registry, and then, the RPC actually
removes the table from the document. The IANA registry itself is
authoritative, not the document, so DRY.
I also asked IANA is they would prefer to just receive this content as XML.
They said they didn't care; we could do that if we wanted, but none of the
tooling makes that easier.
Joel: I have added a Security Considerations. Sorry for that obvious lack.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
