Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 16 October 2020 13:49 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 8BDD03A0F9E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 06:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-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 21pQtauFsuDM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 06:49:35 -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 829F83A0F95 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 06:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCSF91KfFzFJn; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:49:33 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1602856173; bh=NONAqT8oW38+l1pad2RVVFGt530LtEBw3Ptt9PDXt8M=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=MWkloJAuiNIO3W5EXHab1r9YAoulk3k/IXHBAzJj8OXCKie55pO59HRF5e0KzNyTd T5sB8fdR5hr3xxLW6t6g4RQFVjTUnOW8c1Pr6TaM6ut9Z1Qd4xdYsyBdi59CWd3STS 8J1QWhOb6nN8GvatkKfZJR0d2TsTynG0512bDzBM=
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 g_vT1i1GgyUK; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:49:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:49:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5A1D36020F63; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:49:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DCA336CE8; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:49:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:49:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <ladislav.lhotka@nic.cz>
cc: Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>, DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <87y2k6tw8k.fsf@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2010160947320.2206566@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <BF15012C-DB7D-47DB-973F-5745715521E8@NLnetLabs.nl> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2010151506440.2187900@bofh.nohats.ca> <87y2k6tw8k.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/LpNhYuqf4hGS2-jRvUOd1rEV-rU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-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: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:49:39 -0000

On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:

>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang/
>>
>> This looks good to me.
>>
>> One minor item. Is it possible to add text in a way that instructs
>> implementer they SHOULD NOT add "Obsolete" entries when populating?
>
> I think we need to assume that an implementer is familiar with the YANG spec, and this is just one of the rules to follow. Specifically, RFC 7950 says:
>
>   o  "obsolete" means that the definition is obsolete and SHOULD NOT be
>      implemented and/or can be removed from implementations.
>
> This should IMO be sufficient and we needn't repeat in in this document.

Ah yes. And 7950 is referenced in the introduction, so I guess that
should be enough.

Thanks,

Paul