Re: [pim] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-16: (with COMMENT)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

The general model I'm thinking of is one where IANA actions are grouped by
registry, and each registry gets its own section.  See, for example, RFC
6376.

RFC 8407 doesn't require either way as far as I can tell, and Section 10 of
RFC 8022 makes multiple entries in a single registry so it's consistent
with what I'm proposing.

Your document's Section 6 touches two registries, hence my suggestion to
make two subsections.

-MSK


On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 2:54 AM Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Murray,
>
> Please check inline, thanks.
>
> …
>
> Section 6:
>
> * I suggest this be split into two subsections, which in my experience is
> more conventional (but not required).
>
> [Authors]:  We are trying to follow the convention and template suggested
> by RFC 8407, Sec 3.8, and Sec 5.  The single section has been used by
> existing RFCs like RFC 8022. Do you think that we should use a different
> style?"
>
>
>
>
>
> BR/Hongji
>
>
>
> *From:* Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2020 11:24 PM
> *To:* Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* The IESG <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-16: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:57 AM Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> The issues founded in early YANG doctor review have been addressed. YANG
> doctor also confirmed it in the second round review on version 12 almost a
> month ago.
> Regarding other comments,  we will post a new version ASAP to address them.
>
>
>
> Whew!  Thanks for the follow-up. It would be a good idea to update the
> Shepherd Writeup in the future, because that's one of our evaluation
> resources once it gets to the IESG.
>
>
>
> -MSK
>