Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
> That's the opposite of my experience[1]. The draft should say
> *exactly* what IANA is being requested to do. As the draft moves
I can't find an example of this now.
I remember being annoyed when I noticed it, but it made sense.
> Do you have an example of an RFC where registry information has been
> removed? What was left in the "IANA Considerations" section, which is
> mandatory?
The rules (considerations) for the registry were what was left.
--
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
