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

Ladislav Lhotka <> Fri, 11 October 2019 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6F7120073; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 06:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M1h-upbfgDkj; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 06:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FFD120090; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 06:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 109) id E266418204A9; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 15:36:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FD551820046; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 15:36:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <>
To: Paul Wouters <>
Cc:, DNSOP WG <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <C66220A931BC4753B6818DAF898AE2E8@T1650> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 15:33:35 +0200
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoptions: draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:33:42 -0000

Paul Wouters <> writes:

> 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:
> 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.

It is true that the RFC is actually intended for IANA. Martin Bjorklund suggested in the NETMOD mailing list that similar RFCs only contain a template for the YANG module rather than a snapshot of the registry.

On the other hand, no syntax is defined for specifying such templates, so providing a registry snapshot as a concrete example seems logical. Moreover, IANA can use the snapshot right away as an initial revision.


> 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.

I agree but, unfortunately, any proper solution might take quite some time. As a temporary solution, would it be possible to continue with the current draft (in DNSOP WG or elsewhere) provided that it will be emphasized that the RFC is intended primarily for IANA, and that implementors should look for the module at the IANA page? 


> Paul

Ladislav Lhotka 
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67