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

Hi Benoît,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> De la part de Benoit Claise
Envoyé : lundi 16 janvier 2023 11:49
À : Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>; ccamp@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [netmod] What to reference when importing an IANA module?

Dear all,
On 1/13/2023 9:22 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -

On 2023-01-13 10:20 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:

On Jan 13, 2023, at 11:25 AM, Benoit Claise <benoit.claise=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org><mailto:benoit.claise=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

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.

Benoit's reference to RFC 8047 had me puzzled until I saw Kent's
response regarding RFC 8407.  :-)

Agreed - as a hold for document update?

Currently RFC 8407, Section 3.9 says:

    For every import or include statement that appears in a module
    contained in the specification that identifies a module in a separate
    document, a corresponding normative reference to that document MUST
    appear in the Normative References section.  The reference MUST
    correspond to the specific module version actually used within the
    specification.

I agree with Kent's "hold for document update" assessment.  The
difficultly with the existing text is that it correctly reflects
the concerns that were at the forefront when it was written -
e.g. making it as easy as possible for developers to get the
necessary context for implementing a module, but, as far as
I can recall, the group hadn't thought as deeply about
registries spun off from an initial document.

Want to take a swing at it?

Not me.  :-)  There are competing requirements, and the "best" answer
will very much depend on each situation.  I think the *spirit* of
the RFC 8407 Section 3.9 is  "point to whatever resource will be most
enlightening to the developer / user."  But the letter of the law is
"point to whatever is needed to generate a tree of normative
reference dependencies" - that is, use what will be most helpful
to the people writing the standards.  There's a point to both kinds of
pointers.

When in doubt, my preference is to go whichever way will make it
harder for implementations to get it wrong.
Agree on the principles, but there is no quick fix.
Look at Med's proposal:

   If an IANA-maintained module is imported by another module, a

   normative reference with the IANA URL from where to retrieve the

   IANA-maintained module SHOULD be included.  Although not encouraged,

   referencing the RFC that defines the initial version of the IANA

   module is acceptable in specific cases (e.g., the imported version is

   specifically the initial version, the RFC includes useful description

   about the usage of the module).
If we want to add an IANA link to update RFC 8407, Section 3.9, a couple of remarks:
- It's not clear what "a normative reference with the IANA URL" is.
    Is it https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml?
    Or is it https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/iana-if-type@2022-08-24.yang?
    The more precise the later, right?

[Med] None of them. IANA is using dedicated URLs:
* https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-bgp-l2-encaps/iana-bgp-l2-encaps.xhtml
* https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-pseudowire-types/iana-pseudowire-types.xhtml
* https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-bfd-types/iana-bfd-types.xhtml

    However, the latter, which is a typical example of IANA maintained YANG module does NOT work, as the revision in the URL changes with any IAN update
- So this leads to have both RFC and IANA, so https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml + RFC7224 (in the above example)
- Also, we should make more generic for some other SDOs, as IANA is for IETF only.
  And the guidelines are followed by others: BBF, IEEE, etc.

Regards, Benoit

Randy

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.