Update to IANA Considerations
charter-ietf-ianabis-01-02
Yes
Deb Cooley
Erik Kline
Orie Steele
Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
(John Scudder)
(Murray Kucherawy)
(Warren Kumari)
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-04 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Deb Cooley
Yes
Éric Vyncke
Yes
Comment
(2024-11-20 for -00-05)
Sent
Just one minor comment about the last paragraph `By updating BCP 26, the IANABIS Working Group aims...` as it sounds like a marketing sentence for this WG ;-) (a matter of taste)
Erik Kline
Yes
Orie Steele
Yes
Paul Wouters
Yes
Roman Danyliw
Yes
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Comment
(2024-10-24 for -00-04)
Sent
Sorry for not bringing this up earlier, but I realized that the IANA Considerations section is used to register YANG modules, and updates to YANG modules that are maintained by IANA. Some of that text of how to do that has gone into rfc8407-bis, which is not completely out of place, but would like some debate around whether that belongs in this charter, and/or whether it should be moved to the BCP.
John Scudder Former IESG member
(was Block)
Yes
Yes
(for -00-05)
Sent for earlier
Murray Kucherawy Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-05)
Not sent
Warren Kumari Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-04)
Not sent
Zaheduzzaman Sarker Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2024-11-21 for -00-05)
Sent
It would be good to understand how the -bis outcome would impact the older documents, will the wg also work on that?