Re: [DNSOP] request for adoption

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 13 November 2018 06:03 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 37976130DD4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 22:03:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] 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 9CjSH9u1CqoZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 22:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 B54B6130DC8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 22:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42vH9g50zszF6h; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:03:19 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1542088999; bh=bwHqNPGgy/jiZy9zWh39DSuKFvxd8yrgeHvSLCtbUfE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZUiOoTQ5PYR+93/QoU7MJnJUfTtIuZTQ2bvHDxjShpY2ao4SdnlG9dIdZUMbGYF2Z g+OeyUy76hVWwwZURvIKLwLTmQ5gPj8owiR2b/9jMy/Ndv1x7SxKN/MUQUvyktyqNz OnpO+xQ1dNLS3O3MCsn5qOF2q0dNDj8qGzNcNFWU=
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 aWB1ZVpCduKn; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:03:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:03:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 96D13319409; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 01:03:16 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 96D13319409
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF9D41C3B39; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 01:03:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 01:03:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
cc: DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <87a7mefuz6.fsf@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811130101010.9026@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <87a7mefuz6.fsf@nic.cz>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GpWyV3q0PFA-3kN87kUv7YDs-Lc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] request for adoption
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: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 06:03:25 -0000

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:

> we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
> WG item:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00

I'll leave that call up to the chairs bit it sounds like a good idea.

I have reviewed the document.

First, the yand model is correct in the draft. But unfortunately, the IANA registry
itself has flaws.

I am also confused by the difference between deprecated and obsoleted. I guess the
yang model interprets the IANA regitry, but the registry has no official column
designation for this. I wonder if it should be given one. I also then suggest that
the terms obsoleted and deprecated be merged into one term.

I see some RRTYPES are listed as EXPERIMENTAL in the IANA registry while these are
really OBSOLETED. I wonder if we can do a quick draft that moves those to HISTORIC,
so this yang model can use the proper "obsoleted" entry for these. I am referring to:

MB 	7 	a mailbox domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035] 
MG 	8 	a mail group member (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035] 
MR 	9 	a mail rename domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035]

RP 	17 	for Responsible Person

X25 	19 	for X.25 PSDN address

ISDN 	20 	for ISDN address 	[RFC1183] 
RT 	21 	for Route Through 	[RFC1183] 
NSAP 	22 	for NSAP address, NSAP style A record 	[RFC1706] 
NSAP-PTR 	23 	for domain name pointer, NSAP style

PX 	26 	X.400 mail mapping information 	[RFC2163] 
GPOS 	27 	Geographical Position 	[RFC1712]

KX 	36 	Key Exchanger 	[RFC2230]

A6 	38 	A6 (OBSOLETE - use AAAA)

DLV 	32769 	DNSSEC Lookaside Validation

The following entries are deprecated or obsoleted by an RFC, but not marked as such in the IANA
registry:

AFSDB 	18 	for AFS Data Base location  	[RFC1183][RFC5864]
SIG 	24 	for security signature 	[RFC4034][RFC3755][RFC2535][RFC2536][RFC2537][RFC2931][RFC3110][RFC3008] 
KEY 	25 	for security key 	[RFC4034][RFC3755][RFC2535][RFC2536][RFC2537][RFC2539][RFC3008][RFC3110]

NXT 	30 	Next Domain (OBSOLETE)


(Odd how NXT is marked obsolete but not SIG or KEY. These are a set and should be treated the same)

(I'm skipping NULL, MINFO/HINFO on purpose to due Olafur :)




NITS:

It seems that the IANA address in Section 3 implies Canada (CA) or more likely suffers
from the assumption that no country specified means "United States". Please specify
the country :)

Paul