[DNSOP] Fwd: IETF 103: Call for agenda items: draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00

Normen Kowalewski <nbkowalewski@gmx.net> Mon, 05 November 2018 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <nbkowalewski@gmx.net>
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 A0488128CFD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 05:45:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2lGs8Hhcup3s for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 05:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CFEA12426A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 05:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.171] ([80.159.240.13]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LeuUB-1fkNR11eoB-00qhmu; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 14:44:56 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.171] ([80.159.240.13]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LeuUB-1fkNR11eoB-00qhmu; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 14:44:56 +0100
From: Normen Kowalewski <nbkowalewski@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:44:55 +0100
References: <523146AA-C695-462C-84CC-F9462CBF7E7F@gmx.net>
Cc: DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
Message-Id: <6E17826B-F4ED-43D8-8126-E61EC4DA957D@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:lxbcKA8hIvZ/T4djdzb7sKXwQos576GUUjVIScLZXAw8DKuHjmY tnI1Xo1BpiZT/0ojLRa+h9/0rV3aLlXZ7rMoZXrwOd7ermMiXZgFFmB0YEB+9JULOPzqe/y 2sZb+DVpQSB1SILmuyVcEtFtwDWzWXMwzssbtoAESjE8KxxDRrGpOPmfh53KH0AbU9mmzDO qVFMuKJ/5+Wb8Si93wJIw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:nmHWeTkzFvI=:5RVO1EfJ5PUN11T6+Q+0Ar owYz1KaqjSYD4wIk1Ssz6qHFcCbNxLm0WfRIDVDr6gSLVxFs7J6QBofhURctqX/FEam45nfV7 8vAcx7LTMM2dDxqNA5tC7RAP7hntvx2SuHgvmfTNMldBkkZ3k8SMIK6WV3htFSnxL79LYOTse pR9ww+Pwp7sudPsn4XJEaQd1aiG3X+dv3YR/3rJ3bAzNvH3Uu/55eUorNodd+Js8rXBk7x90S UROZLXVe1N3d9elC5jXqjOSV/Pxxfg9j2mBet9SYStNORJVASl7pmlfoCRQlR9+/ZvV4+gOIY r8j6SiFj3aWXpBraRo934Je+W6M8fpEXvQRuzy6nBkouzvNmfrVTyhzn1tFLdmp2YquQ+v2pn s+7ZQT7k7Jr3BvcAZaXbYl7ekmWtBhZTsh17jBdtjoObn/87P1KcbsgBLk/DKF7lXl9eZ27UB beRJ95BiSi7ILpLao9EAbCeigUCTpaoQjt4VDY56PeWIMA4ETD5kvSpqO7wAJD7Sueohq4Ls5 PM3af+1Trh+Dru/hlhD0MYWIxP4kwVuPnDNu48zU0MjzbgdbIur5FwtW7W1pFkPTQt4HM26Yc EEO+9qpare1oq/AJlXFndI7aPuWvUQ9o6LYv4VW3bhMR2AASXFLcpGhUUgWvT8MZMc6YDGo80 3H+n+A0L+sBWTRUffj3SV+XwfcvIqbpr3r0+16AJUYcbkqfMdjirDZwqzrrBXXwZEA9VWzHxj 9uGWWoTOo6L7M6QG8rNXu/M54wtgvAonckpVWeemr/CoDHOTOSA/FNEd1aXemqb1BaM4beiQs ESeDGGKppuX1SOq+4KYc8rmssFAKboDHeQYHmiSRaJnNCnDT2xv6lSh7xDjNQjxCGFjgjcRRF SrOPqsWqxQo6zTzlJrx9Zn+bKBiiMes0KekYRfhb2pojb8n/ly8WrY3LRX0rh8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vTHIs6bLG42cZunr_DKfO4hMEKA>
Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: IETF 103: Call for agenda items: draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
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, 05 Nov 2018 13:45:11 -0000

Hi Bob,


> On 12. Oct 2018, at 15:48, Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>  wrote:

sorry for the very late reply; please allow two cents inline

> 
> In entries like:
> 
> enum NSAP-PTR {
> value "23";
> description
> "Domain name pointer, NSAP style.";
> reference
> "- RFC 1348: DNS NSAP RRs
> 
> - RFC 1637: DNS NSAP Resource Records
> 
> - RFC 1706: DNS NSAP Resource Records";
> }
> It seems odd to me to create the reference field as a string  that
> contains what looks like YAML, except that it has extra  blank
> lines.



> Does YANG not have a standard way to represent a  list, and should
> the reference field always be a list, for consistency?


Listing and enumerating stuff is AFAIK quite at the core of YANG, so it could have been define as something like “reference-list”, if folks focus had been programatic use. 
Yet the respective chapter YANG RFC 6020 section-7.19.4, updated in YANG 1.1 RFC 7950. section-7.21.4, says:

  The "reference" statement takes as an argument a string that is a
  human-readable cross-reference to an external document 

If we look at the content in the IANA “reference” field today, in the table at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-4
it seems that it is quite varied:

* one of more comma seperated RFC numbers
* name of an internet draft in edgy brackets, 
* a footnote number in edgy brackets
* a name reference of an author 
* a name reference of some underlying additional document
* a URL of some underlying additional document
* the IANA reservation statement, aka [IANA-Reserved]
as well as
* combinations of some of the before listed, assumedly with some implicit hierarchy of records where such combinations are used.

For this YANG draft, I don’t see a need to normalise types and structure within this content beyond what is at IANA today. TO me its OK to just reference the IANA content "as is” and formally maintain the YANG declaration in "reference” as "human targeted”.


> Also, the "template" and "registration date" fields appear to  be missing.

Do you see a need to replicate all the data fields of this IANA registry in the YANG model, and if yes, what benefit at the YANG end could this add? 
 
Best Regards, 

Normen Kowalewski