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

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:

(added IESG to CC:)

>> We don't want to have to update the RFC every time the registry is updated.
>> Could the RFC just describe exactly how to to convert the registry to YANG?
>>  Then it won't need updates.
>
> Only the initial version of the YANG module will be published as an RFC, and
> IANA will then handle all future updates on their own. This is explained in the
> I-D itself (last paragraph of the Introduction) and has already been discussed
> in this mailing list.

What is "future updates on its own"? How are implementors reading the
this (now old) RFC to know what they are missing or what obsoleted and
deprecated options listed in the RFC should not be implemented?

> The IANA Considerations sections then gives details about converting new
> registry entries into the corresponding YANG types.
>
> Several years of experience with the interface type registry (RFC 7224) shows
> that this process works quite smoothly.

I think this claim is both an unquantifed appeal to authority and unfair. The
technical debt of doing this happens 10+ years from now, when people are
implementing obsolete record types because a modern DNS Yang RFC references
these record types, and might be missing new record types because the
modern DNS Yang RFC did not yet have this new record type listed.

I have brought this issue of putting IANA snapshots in RFC's up on a
number of occasions and WGs now, including at IETF Plenaries. I was told
the IESG is working on it. Can the IESG tell me what is being done here,
and what the IESG believes should happen to drafts suggesting to do this
meanwhile?

Paul