Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Thanks for addressing my comments.
Thank you for addressing my Discuss (and comment) points!
Minor comment: Maybe name the new registry "IETF YANG Module Tags" instead of "YANG Module Tags"...?
I agree with Mirja’s comment about the name of the registry.
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and my apologies for taking so long.
(1) Along the same lines of Alissa's DISCUSS, which I support. §6.1: "For standardized modules new tags MUST be assigned in the IANA registry defined below, see Section 7.2." What is a "standardized module"? It sounds like a Standards Track document, but (as Alissa pointed out) the registration policy is only IETF Review. (2) §7.1: "All YANG module tags SHOULD begin with one of the prefixes in this registry." That statement along with the text in §2.4: Any tag not starting with the prefix "ietf:", "vendor:" or "user:" is reserved for future standardization. These tag values are not invalid, but simply reserved in the context of standardization. ...seem to indicate that a tag with any format can be used. Is that true? Is that the intent? If so, then it seems to me that vendor/user tags could simply forgo the standardized prefix. I guess this is ok...it just makes me wonder about the need to even define those prefixes. (3) I'm not sure what, but I think it may be wise to give the would-be DEs for the new registry in §7.1 some more guidance on the allocation of new prefixes. The only current guidance is this: "Prefix entries in this registry should be short strings consisting of lowercase ASCII alpha-numeric characters and a final ":" character."