Early Review of draft-ietf-lisp-yang-20
review-ietf-lisp-yang-20-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2023-11-27-00

Hi,

this document had already a early review by Christian Hoops, which was very helpful.
However, when authors request WGLC a couple of question were raised for which we do not know have a definite answer.

In his email (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/lJ7jBJzjJNY2P4sQgCcLuSnnzds/) Med did raise the following two points (among others):

1   As you are using many identities that are echoing what is in https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml, I wonder whether you considered turning those into an IANA-maintained module. New identities will be added automatically to the module when, e.g., a new act is defined. FWIW, you may refer to RFC9108 or https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-netmod-iana-registries/.

2   You may check if the geo-coordinate grouping in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9179/ would be applicable here as well. If not, I would add an explanation why this isn't.

In summary:

1 Is it worth to have a IANA-maintained module?

2 Does geo-coordinate grouping apply to this document?  

Thanks in advance.

Luigi