On 16. 07. 19 20:33, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I believe strongly that the method of referencing the >>> registries that the i2nsf document does is preferable over the >>> method of the dnsop document. > > >> While this may be true, it would be helpful if you could reply >> to Petr's message [1] in the dnsop thread you started. In >> particular, if IANA itself updates the YANG modules directly, at >> the same time as updating the base registry (i.e., without the >> initial RFC itself being updated), what issues remain? > > I think that I'm okay if IANA generated YANG modules from the > protocol registries. That shouldn't be in an RFC though. I don't > know how this will work with systems that generate code from a YANG > module, but I know nothing about that usage. > >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-10 >>> >>> is a document that does nothing other than what you describe as >>> wrong. > >> True, and worse, that draft hasn't yet switched the YANG module >> to being a collection of IANA-maintained modules, as has been >> discussed on the list. This change hasn't been made yet only >> because there is an even larger issue (i.e., lack of a universal >> crypto algorithm type registry) that needs to be resolved first. > > It just won't happen that way. > >>> I haven't been able to convince the authors that this is a bad >>> thing. > >> This is an interesting and somewhat overreaching characterization >> of past interactions. > > okay :-) Let me say: "I haven't received communication from the > authors about how they feel" As stated in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nu8BTdaHAVrxxoqxnknkDkK-4g8 the primary author is not available at the moment so I suggest we wait couple days for him to return back to the Internet. Thank you for understanding. -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC
