[DNSOP] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-03: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

One issue that I think we should should discuss and resolve (sorry for the late
discuss ballot):

In section 4, it states:

   "status":  Include only if a class or type registration has been
      deprecated or obsoleted.  In both cases, use the value "obsolete"
      as the argument of the "status" statement.

I know that we have had some previous discussion on this on Netmod, but, if
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-02 gets standardized then it will
effectively evolve YANG's "status deprecated" into "must implement or
explicitly deviate" and YANG's "status obsolete" into "must not implement".  It
wasn't clear to me that marking one of these fields as being deprecated in an
IANA registry would mean that existing implementations must stop using it if
they migrate to a new version of the generated YANG module.  Hence, I think
that at this stage, it may be safer to map IANA "deprecated" into YANG's
"status deprecated"?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Thanks for this document.  I think that documenting this fields in YANG is a good thing.

One minor nit:

In an couple of places you have used 'analogically' but perhaps meant 'analogously' instead?

Thanks,
Rob