Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoptions: draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 10 October 2019 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33634120099; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 06:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3IoTGrtxwjoN; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 06:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CB4B120096; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 06:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46pt093pmkzDW3; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:55:53 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1570715753; bh=+MCCtuOXG7iH218SNfY89uVJT6SxowOUllhiIyM9PqI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=uiAbXrZTvoZGY82NXFndGHTEGeR3+Zz1WBnE7kUsJAinXpJmgM8nzNrttYJrHFw0L fL1o4fryPYb4zqhVp33es7VdCm7I7Zm5P73xcVJQvZoTxFRq3PqJeqr08cph31aOqb igM4nqyWrdR3+R2sYK+1+FSMdqaYmo3Jjuou4KgQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jJYRychY-Iaf; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:55:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:55:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3D2D6606AA24; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:55:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3941123FDDC; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:55:50 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:55:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
cc: iesg@ietf.org, DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <874l0hrr9c.fsf@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910100951010.10011@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <820fe3a1-9d54-15c1-8194-8a607bdf6a31@NLnetLabs.nl> <87sgqy2azd.fsf@nic.cz> <920E9418-4440-46F6-87B7-68CF8B03C408@gmx.net> <C66220A931BC4753B6818DAF898AE2E8@T1650> <426d8bf2-cf28-11f6-4435-08fcaa37e7f5@NLnetLabs.nl> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910071329420.19930@bofh.nohats.ca> <0A5478B0-BC32-46AA-A915-ABC026D247CA@gmx.net> <CA+nkc8BjHrCF7PO_0RKETcLWhNDDA2M66antFE=xusHcdsVHhA@mail.gmail.com> <93dba67e7c86fe1679f9ca534740c93e7af1eabf.camel@nic.cz> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910091628450.11081@bofh.nohats.ca> <874l0hrr9c.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/2V7tlU8wwXfShUzN6fTgt7ZR004>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoptions: draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:55:58 -0000

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:

> They should not actually be reading the RFC but get the latest revision of the module from this page:
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml

You are asking for text to go into an RFC, which you then say they
(implementors) should not read. Clearly then the text should not go
into the RFC.

> I do admit that this may not be clear to everybody. What we are really missing is a well-known and authoritative repository of YANG modules, at least those produced by IETF and managed by IANA.

Right. This is why I was hoping the IESG would have made some progress
on this, as they said they were working on "this".

> Would it help to reclassify the RFC as historic as soon as IANA takes over the responsibility for such a module?

I doubt it. Since developers that need to implement some RFC number have
no idea about the historic status. They tend to not even know the
difference between experimental, standard, informational.

>> I think this claim is both an unquantifed appeal to authority and unfair. The
>> technical debt of doing this happens 10+ years from now, when people are
>> implementing obsolete record types because a modern DNS Yang RFC references
>> these record types, and might be missing new record types because the
>> modern DNS Yang RFC did not yet have this new record type listed.
>
> I really don't understand. What DNS Yang RFC are you referring to? I am not aware of any.

Your draft.

> We are open to all reasonable suggestions.

My suggestion was a link the proper IANA registries, which _are_ updated
by other RFCs to place things into obsolete/deprecated and receive new
entries based on other new RFCs.

As you said the implementors need to go to the IANA/YANG module place, a
link to that would be more useful than including a current snapshot of
the IANA registries.

Paul