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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 15 July 2019 21:25 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 C5A1E120132 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 s8xDS4yOsUBW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:25:07 -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 B03DE120129 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45nc4d3YyvzKpr; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 23:25:05 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1563225905; bh=R8HYIleZoFXjcYh0EFsskdWkDXQOwTqSYRxtgYJ6fQc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=fNsLyO2PLIeMjGf6tBQQ4yYoRKVAq0erqT43P/xgmqW4FnDtTuU1zu2NL9+IiUcmR WHk7wRxjcv/olzl1dclrJ1iZPvVdMgDZ/Fk6+QdKKhzO5SqPIB0l4IZ3niFr+oWn0e Fi6WhLPN8oehI7F27wvHcd7YGXGSeD//VsZHnlTY=
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 MYQ7IWRHpCNf; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 23:25:04 +0200 (CEST)
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; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 23:25:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 31A392FCD9; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:25:02 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 31A392FCD9
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C8D401A555; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:25:02 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:25:02 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
cc: DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <820fe3a1-9d54-15c1-8194-8a607bdf6a31@NLnetLabs.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1907151710570.15898@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <820fe3a1-9d54-15c1-8194-8a607bdf6a31@NLnetLabs.nl>
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/ab1YwtZYF85qwih0L5fN6zdKfQU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoptions: draft-lhotka-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: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 21:25:10 -0000

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote:

> The draft YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types,
> draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang, has been presented at the IETF
> 103 and IETF 104.
>
> During the IETF 104 meeting, the authors asked for adoption by the DNSOP
> WG.  The feedback from the DNSOP WG room was positive and also previous
> discussions on the DNSOP mailing list (dd. 12 November 2018) were also
> supportive.

I have stated before, in dnsop and other places (such as ipsecme/i2nsf) that
yang documents MUST NOT populate RFC's with snapshots of IANA registries. It
leads to people implementing things long obsoleted/deprecated, and to
new things not getting included because items are newer than the yang
RFC publication date.

This advise was widely agreed upon for i2nsf/ipsecme that a yangdoctors
discussion on how to reference IANA registries in yang documents was
started. I understood work needed to happen to allow the referencing
of IANA registries in yang modules. I'm not sure where we are with that
work now.


This document should not be adopted in its current form. It should only
be adopted once the authors have ensured the new method of referencing
IANA registries is used instead of the current hardcoding method.

Paul