Re: [CCAMP] [netmod] What to reference when importing an IANA module?

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

I am having the feeling that the discussion is converging about the recommendation to reference the URL instead of the RFC where the initial version of the YANG module has been published

Is my understanding correct?

I agree it would be good to document such a guideline in an update to RFC 8407

I think it would be better to document this in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-netmod-iana-registries/ as proposed earlier by Med

If we follow this approach, I think it is quite important to also recommend in the guidelines that the following text exists in the YANG module description:

       This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
       the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

Those who the module overview, need to know that it is available in RFC XXXX and the initial revision statement will go deeper and deeper in the module to be easily found

My 2 cents

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
> Sent: venerdì 13 gennaio 2023 17:26
> To: tom petch <[e-mail]>; Italo Busi <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [netmod] What to reference when importing an IANA module?
> 
> Hi Tom,
> > Yes I do think that people outside the IETF may be ignorant of the
> > nuances of the way the IETF works and  may not realise that a URL to
> > the IANA website must be used in preference to an RFC.  There is more
> > to YANG modules than extracting the code from somewhere in order to
> > incorporate it into something.  I have even seen RFC reference the
> > obsolete list of possibilities  in the RFC that set up an IANA
> > registry
> If this is the case (And Randy supports this), then we should update RFC 8047.
> 
> Regards, B.