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

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:20:34 -0700

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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types/

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

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.

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:43:43 +0000

Hi Alissa, 

>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types/

It is only the name of the module and not the type identifiers themselves.
This precedence of a separate iana-xxx module was set in RFC 7224 and was
specifically requested during draft development (RTG WG and NETMOD WG). I
don’t think now is the right time to change it.

Thanks,
Acee