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

Ladislav Lhotka <ladislav.lhotka@nic.cz> Thu, 03 June 2021 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ladislav.lhotka@nic.cz>
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 B73283A0CFC; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=nic.cz
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 IY8P3GasyvlF; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (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 66B253A0CF6; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:a88f:7eff:fed2:45f8]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4CE81409B5; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 18:31:19 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1622737879; bh=UkWSyqYsbh1vVmauYg8C0aHc6BNAUdYSHbBOrHf9Pdc=; h=From:To:Date; b=KVYlY90loCeTZLWzqKynedsthFsTDmIr5fNKBhyZIvRP37MhELkl0QEfEF8f2SliI 1nt1Iu3T1PF4JL9IkubiJzYiXmu28Tsh5HBjC2QMwJEPcvhnU71DLjqHI6xF5S39Ws Pn/2DrYCcR8gPzqSbG/VrCGULCn8mraEvTZuZYys=
From: Ladislav Lhotka <ladislav.lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, benno@NLnetLabs.nl, benno@NLnetLabs.nl, michelle.cotton@iana.org
In-Reply-To: <162263792401.16898.6094340099632095250@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <162263792401.16898.6094340099632095250@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 18:31:19 +0200
Message-ID: <877djalxk8.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/oVaHg51lY3PVboqfVYsmCWw28Jk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 16:31:30 -0000

Hi Francesca,

thanks for your comments, please see below.

Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> writes:

...

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work on this document.
>
> (This is a "let's talk" DISCUSS, which I don't expect to hold after the
> telechat) I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to add a step where IANA gets the
> help of the designated experts from each respective registry when elements are
> added to the DNS class or RR type registries, either by the experts creating
> the substatements to be added, or at least checking and confirming those
> created by IANA.

If you mean YANG expertise, then I believe it is already embodied in the XSLT stylesheet. In principle, IANA can run it after each change in the registry and get the new revision of the YANG module.

>
> A couple of minor comments below.
>
> Francesca
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. -----
>
>    models along with standard management protocols such as NETCONF and
>    RESTCONF can be effectively used in DNS operations, too.  In fact,
>
> FP: Please expand NETCONF and RESTCONF on first use.

I can do it for NETCONF but (to my knowledge) RESTCONF is the name of the protocol and no expansion exists.

>
> 2. -----
>
> FP: I believe it would be good to add a sentence in the terminology section
> stating that DNS terminology is used throughout the document, and point to RFC
> 8499 and/or RFC 1035. I think informatively would be enough.

OK, will do.

Thanks, Lada

>
>
>

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67