[auth48] [IANA #1237567] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9268 <draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-15> for your review

[Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob, all,

On Wed Aug 03 15:31:10 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> Sandy,
> 
> Thanks very much, a few comments below.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> > On Aug 2, 2022, at 4:15 PM, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bob, IANA,
> >
> > Just jumping in on this one — I’ve added IANA to this thread so they
> > can chime in if we’ve misunderstood or in case anything has changed.
> >
> >> On Aug 2, 2022, at 2:26 PM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I note that the reference to the IANA HBH option registry was
> >>>>> changed from:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [IANA-HBH] "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options",
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/
> >>>>>            ipv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> to:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [IANA-HBH] IANA, "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options",
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The original reference goes directly the specific Destination
> >>>>> Options and Hop-by-Hop Options registry, where the new one goes
> >>>>> to the general IPv6 parameter registry.   Why the change?
> >>>
> >>> We updated the reference per input from IANA. IANA recommended that
> >>> RFCs point to the top-most registry since they are considered
> >>> stable; they prefer that the direct URLs to specific registries on
> >>> a page not be used.
> >>
> >> I wasn’t aware of that.   The result is a little confusing.  The
> >> text in the reference says:
> >>
> >> "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options”
> >>
> >> but it goes to a page titled:
> >>
> >> Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters
> >
> > I see what you’re saying.  My hope is that a reader will search for
> > the registry title on the main page.  Would it be more clear to add
> > some text where the registry is cited?  For example:
> >
> > IANA has registered an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option type in the
> > "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry within the
> > "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters” registry [IANA-HBH].)
> 
> Yes, that would help.

I'd recommend changing "registry" to "registry group" in that last line:

IANA has registered an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option type in the
"Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry within the
"Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters” registry group [IANA-HBH].)
 
> >
> >
> >
> >> Would something like the following be better?
> >>
> >> IANA, "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options”, Internet
> >> Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters, <https://www.iana.org/
> >> assignments/ipv6-parameters/>.
> >
> > The current format is based on IANA’s input.  We suggested a similar
> > format in the past, but there was a preference not to include the
> > top-level registry/group title as the page may/will be formatted
> > differently in the future (e.g., the registry/group title may change
> > or no longer appear).
> >
> > Previously proposed:
> > [NAME]  IANA, "Top-Level Registry Name: Registry Name", <URL to top-
> > level registry>.
> >
> >
> >> Seems to me that for IANA registries that are stable, like this one,
> >> it’s not too burdensome for IANA to have a stable link to each sub-
> >> registry.
> >
> > I believe this is in the works.
> 
> That would be helpful.

IANA is in the process of moving from an XML-based to a database-based registry system. Once this change has been implemented, https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2 will still work, but will take you only to the list of IPv6 Parameters registries that includes Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options, rather than Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options itself. We will provide permanent links to specific registries like Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options, but that system isn't yet available. 

Best regards,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager