** Section 12.5. BCP14 keywords should not be used in the guidance to IANA.
** Section 12.5
The Designated Expert should determine if the work overlaps with
existing efforts; and if so suggest merging/coordinating. However,
as registration is optional, the Designated Expert should not block
any vendor registrations.
-- What are “existing efforts” – vendor and IETF efforts?
-- Why is it appropriate for a DE to “suggest/coordinate” activity between
multiple non-IETF parties (in the case of a vendor registrations) or a
WG+vendor?
** Section 12.5
* For non-standards track extensions, the Designated Expert should
review whatever document is provided, if any. The stability of
the reference may be of concern.
Where is the DE guidance for “non-standards track”? All the text says is that
the DE should review it. Review it for what?
** Section 12.5
Future work may allow for PEN based allocations.
Is this text needed? No action can be taken on it.
** Section 12.5
Extension name strings for standards track documents are single
words, given by the YANG Module Name. They do not contain dots.
For vendor proprietary extensions, the string SHOULD be made unique
by putting the extension name in the form a fully-qualified domain
name (FQDN) [RFC3696], such as "fuubar.example.com"
What about documents which are not on the standards track (e.g., experimental
on the IETF stream, and ISE or IRTF document)
** Section 12.5
For vendor proprietary extensions, the string SHOULD be made unique
by putting the extension name in the form a fully-qualified domain
name (FQDN) [RFC3696], such as "fuubar.example.com"
When is it acceptable for a non-unique name to be used? This text allows for
duplicate names to be registered?
** Section 12.5
Designated Experts should review for standards track documents for
clarity, but the choices are tied to WG and IESG processes:
* There are no choices in the extension names (which is always the
YANG module name), or SID value (which is from another IANA
process).
* For non-standards track extensions, the Designated Expert should
review whatever document is provided, if any. The stability of
the reference may be of concern.
-- Editorial. Is there an editorial issue in the first sentence? s/should
review for/should review/?
