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

[Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>]

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].)



> 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.

Thanks,
Sandy