[rpp] [IANA #1446148] Early review: draft-kowalik-rpp-data-objects-03 (IETF 125)

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

Dear Authors,

Before the IETF meeting, we check working group agendas for documents with IANA-related issues. We have notes about this document:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kowalik-rpp-data-objects-03

It doesn't have to be discussed now, but it looks like it might be a good idea to discuss different ways to present this registry information. Should the “Data Elements” table for each registration itself be considered a registry that can receive new registrations? If so, we could fill in this field with a link to a “<Data Object Name> Data Elements” subregistry. (This would also require establishing registration procedures for those subregistries and determining whether those procedures would apply to all future Data Objects’ Data Element subregistries, which might be desirable.) 

A similar solution was eventually arrived at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix, where many of the current subregistries for the Information Elements registry initially started as tables in individual Information Element registrations’ “Description” fields. 

Also, can this be a “RESTful Provisioning Protocol (RPP) Data Objects” registry in a new “RESTful Provisioning Protocol (RPP)” registry group, as suggested in draft-wullink-rpp-core, rather than a “RESTful Provisioning Protocol (RPP) Data Object Registry”? In recent years, we’ve asked authors to leave the word “Registry” out of registry names wherever possible, and the help page linked below describes registries and registry groups. 

If you have any questions, just let us know. If you'd like to talk in person, you can find us next to the RFC Editor's table from Monday through Thursday. You can also request another review at any time by contacting us at [e-mail].

For more information about IANA Considerations section requirements, please see

https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration

Best regards,

Amanda Baber
IANA