Michael, as far as I know, the request to IANA is not removed from the
RFC, although the IANA registry is definitve from then on.
Also, the fact that the HTML rendering of the draft is unreadable does
seem to be a problem. And if Guy is correct that the descriptions are
insufficient (as I presume he is) that seems a problem that needs to be
fixed before publication.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/16/2024 10:43 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
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*
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
