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

[Petr Špaček <[e-mail]>]

On 16. 07. 19 10:03, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> On 7/16/19 1:49 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 19:13, Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, the current draft enumerates DLV
>>> which needs to be removed.
>>
>> Can you explain this?
>>
>> I can understand a forthcoming clarification on the use of DLV that
>> might make it ill-advised to publish such an RRType, but it's not
>> obvious that a dictionary of once-used RRTypes in any particular
>> format is useless (for example in understanding observed RRTypes in
>> order to track the length of a deprecated type's tail).
>>
>> Are archaic English worlds redacted from dictionaries?
> 
> This may be my fault: I had put text in draft-mekking-dnsop-obsolete-dlv
> that the DLV reference in this draft should be removed.
> 
> But you are right, the reference to DLV can stay in
> draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang, just like there is a reference
> to A6.
> 
> The status of A6 in this draft is set to obsolete, as it should be. But
> what should the status of DLV be in this document? This question I guess
> proves Paul's argument that putting snapshots of IANA registries in an
> I-D is a bad idea.

Ladislav Lhotka, the primary author of the draft and our YANG expert is
not reachable till beginning of IETF, so I will try reply
non-authoritatively to this concern:

Purpose of draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-02 is to establish
relationship between existing IANA registries (for DNS classes and
types) and their coresponding YANG modules, and to and instruct IANA to
update the respective YANG module when IANA DNS registries are updated.


Last two paragraphs from Introduction:
>    This document is a first step in translating DNS-related IANA
>    registries to YANG.  It contains the initial revision of the YANG
>    module "iana-dns-class-rr-type" that defines derived types for the
>    common parameters of DNS resource records (RR): class and type.
>    These YANG types, "dns-class" and "rr-type", reflect the IANA
>    registries "DNS CLASSes" and "Resource Record (RR) TYPEs"
>    [IANA-DNS-PARAMETERS].
> 
>    It is worth emphasizing that the role of the DNSOP Working Group is
>    only in preparing and publishing this initial revision of the YANG
>    module.  Subsequently, whenever a new class or RR type is added to
>    the above registries, IANA will also update the iana-dns-class-rr-
>    type YANG module, following the instructions in Section 4 below.


Having said that, I do not understand the concerns expressed above.

What exactly are you objecting to?

That the RFC will contain initial state of the registries (at time of
publication)?

Or that IANA will automatically update the YANG module from other
registries?

Please clarify your concerns, I'm lost. Thank you.

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC