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

Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> Tue, 03 November 2020 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 EB1573A0D31 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:47:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 aYWNe3u0ozmZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound.soverin.net (outbound.soverin.net [116.202.65.215]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 906C33A0D1E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (unknown [10.10.3.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A5A1601C8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:47:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [159.69.232.142]) by soverin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1604418457; bh=nNW447AMIgJzsXYITaEYz1opbdpaoCk581KYK8W8Nvc=; h=To:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=iBu23ESiDnu2Emgv03iHPN+c+NNbIfWWmklq1k9EFhcbykk8/f2UWtSYFeN/dssBw CE8d4Yv35hXWvC+E1v4jx9Jt4nXMi8vVMYrr/4o21RX+yhV/1/6zMKru/0zpbRprVV q2KYuGbljQAaULIvcWGslWc6orki2IhlCuz3B44bXgcuhdtGr7LwiXWz19xhp3n5Ji rp5wHvA9KpaY2cm7DXqaigGiK/xa74e6IWAGMOBCe30XGe0AcYAeTiPgV8lhdgWcR1 X0OwZsqHMsDfX0T2TxSQEURiUQUK2KTXuCRkPtqJLCEKSMcpOkrjKjkb5BTSydsiUw 87KzD3q1yplYg==
To: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <BF15012C-DB7D-47DB-973F-5745715521E8@NLnetLabs.nl> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2010151506440.2187900@bofh.nohats.ca> <87y2k6tw8k.fsf@nic.cz> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2010160947320.2206566@bofh.nohats.ca>
From: Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
Message-ID: <9a94a589-b6e6-8dc3-e599-4f5ee53bcc20@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 16:47:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2010160947320.2206566@bofh.nohats.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/u-BApUQbdoNXyynlpy2_03m7dBE>
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 15:47:44 -0000

Dear WG,

The WGLC period for draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang has finished.

 From the comments on the mailing list of DNSOP participants who 
contributed and/or provided feedback on the document, I conclude that 
the authors have included and processed their comments.

The chairs feel that the draft is ready to move forward.

Thanks for the reviews,

— Benno



On 16/10/2020 15:49, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop