Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper <> Thu, 12 October 2017 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88491120720; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <>
To: "The IESG" <>
Cc:, Jeff Tantsura <>,,,
Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:20:34 -0700
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:20:35 -0000

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: No Objection

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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


This is a small thing, but in general I think it would be preferable not to
embed the name "iana" in identifiers that can be consumed programmatically (the
namespace URN and module name). What distinguishes the iana-routing-types
module seems to be that the types define values for address family identifiers,
not the fact that the registries containing those identifiers happen to be
administered by IANA. If somebody else administered those registries it would
have no effect on the contents of the module.