Re: [netconf] [Ext] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server-38: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Amanda Baber <[e-mail]>]

About this comment: "Regarding Section 6.3 (Considerations for the "iana-ssh-encryption-algs" Module): Does IANA accept the python script and the manual revision statement process that is required?"

IANA is OK with updating the "iana-ssh-encryption-algs" module manually (as per the usual) after using the Python script to generate the initial module. 

We're discussing the revision statement reference instructions with the YANG doctors, and it sounds like both this document and 8407bis may need to be updated to tell us to point to the module URL when a registration doesn't come from an RFC. However, because we won't actually publish the module until the RFC Editor publishes the document, we don't believe approval needs to be delayed on this account.

(This is also true for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-39.)

Thanks,
Amanda

On 2/29/24, 6:38 AM, "iesg on behalf of Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server-38: Discuss

    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)


    Please refer to https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!PtGJab4!-9wR30FO7dRi094oLGRyxJMk8jT26zkNpAEhTPt54IvN0o-gKYaSSDAVjcj_fjX3BU6hWu81IiYZLDb0B6mJENo$ [ietf[.]org] 
    for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server/__;!!PtGJab4!-9wR30FO7dRi094oLGRyxJMk8jT26zkNpAEhTPt54IvN0o-gKYaSSDAVjcj_fjX3BU6hWu81IiYZLDb0zCEaBQk$ [datatracker[.]ietf[.]org]



    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISCUSS:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    BCP 81 says the registration contact has to be the IESG for things developed by
    the IETF.  Why do some of them list IANA as the contact?


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    >From Orie Steele, incoming ART Area Director:

    Regarding Section 6.3 (Considerations for the "iana-ssh-encryption-algs" Module):

    Does IANA accept the python script and the manual revision statement process that is required?