Re: [DNSOP] request for adoption

[Petr Špaček <[e-mail]>]

On 13. 11. 18 7:03, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 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]


Is there any *technical* use for this field? Do we need it in the YANG
model?

Maybe we can just omit it while transforming the registry into model and
be done with it ...

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC