Re: [DNSOP] request for adoption

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Tue, 13 November 2018 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <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 B843C129619 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 04:08:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 99iLwkew7zBG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 04:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E59612007C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 04:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix, from userid 109) id EF68B182113B; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:16:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (nat-2.nic.cz [217.31.205.2]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BF261820059; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:16:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811130101010.9026@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <87a7mefuz6.fsf@nic.cz> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811130101010.9026@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:07:55 +0100
Message-ID: <87pnv9ji3o.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ypr0c0EXTXHw0CNz-iritHQO1o0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] request for adoption
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, 13 Nov 2018 12:08:04 -0000

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>; writes:

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
>> WG item:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
>
> I'll leave that call up to the chairs bit it sounds like a good idea.
>
> I have reviewed the document.
>
> First, the yand model is correct in the draft. But unfortunately, the
> IANA registry itself has flaws.

Hmm, I think the module should only reflect the registry contents, so
any problems should be fixed in the registry first.

>
> I am also confused by the difference between deprecated and
> obsoleted. I guess the yang model interprets the IANA regitry, but the
> registry has no official column designation for this. I wonder if it
> should be given one. I also then suggest that the terms obsoleted and
> deprecated be merged into one term.

Actually, I copied the corresponding text from RFC 7224, but I am not
sure whether the deprecated status is used at all in IANA registries. If
not, we can remove that part and leave only "obsolete". Unless somebody
knows the answer right away, I will ask IANA about it. 

>
> I see some RRTYPES are listed as EXPERIMENTAL in the IANA registry
> while these are really OBSOLETED. I wonder if we can do a quick draft

YANG doesn't define experimental status (maybe it should).

> that moves those to HISTORIC, so this yang model can use the proper

Yes, this would be a good thing to do. I assume that "historic" can be
interpreted as obsolete. BTW, the semantics of the status terms in YANG
is defined here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.21.2

Thanks, Lada

> "obsoleted" entry for these. I am referring to:
>
> MB 	7 	a mailbox domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035] 
> MG 	8 	a mail group member (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035] 
> MR 	9 	a mail rename domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) 	[RFC1035]
>
> RP 	17 	for Responsible Person
>
> X25 	19 	for X.25 PSDN address
>
> ISDN 	20 	for ISDN address 	[RFC1183] 
> RT 	21 	for Route Through 	[RFC1183] 
> NSAP 	22 	for NSAP address, NSAP style A record 	[RFC1706] 
> NSAP-PTR 	23 	for domain name pointer, NSAP style
>
> PX 	26 	X.400 mail mapping information 	[RFC2163] 
> GPOS 	27 	Geographical Position 	[RFC1712]
>
> KX 	36 	Key Exchanger 	[RFC2230]
>
> A6 	38 	A6 (OBSOLETE - use AAAA)
>
> DLV 	32769 	DNSSEC Lookaside Validation
>
> The following entries are deprecated or obsoleted by an RFC, but not marked as such in the IANA
> registry:
>
> AFSDB 	18 	for AFS Data Base location  	[RFC1183][RFC5864]
> SIG 	24 	for security signature 	[RFC4034][RFC3755][RFC2535][RFC2536][RFC2537][RFC2931][RFC3110][RFC3008] 
> KEY 	25 	for security key 	[RFC4034][RFC3755][RFC2535][RFC2536][RFC2537][RFC2539][RFC3008][RFC3110]
>
> NXT 	30 	Next Domain (OBSOLETE)
>
>
> (Odd how NXT is marked obsolete but not SIG or KEY. These are a set and should be treated the same)
>
> (I'm skipping NULL, MINFO/HINFO on purpose to due Olafur :)
>
>
>
>
> NITS:
>
> It seems that the IANA address in Section 3 implies Canada (CA) or more likely suffers
> from the assumption that no country specified means "United States". Please specify
> the country :)
>
> Paul

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