Re: [DNSOP] request for adoption

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 28 November 2018 09:59 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 1A059130E95 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 01:59:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 0sbBLIWebXX3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 01:59:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D1B130E7C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 01:59:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix, from userid 109) id A29FD1820CC0; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:06:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (084035065018.static.ipv4.infopact.nl [84.35.65.18]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58FA41820056; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:06:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Petr =?utf-8?B?xaBwYcSNZWs=?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <f9c8907f-cd2f-44f3-593a-b8e21ace8dc3@nic.cz>
References: <87a7mefuz6.fsf@nic.cz> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811130101010.9026@bofh.nohats.ca> <f9c8907f-cd2f-44f3-593a-b8e21ace8dc3@nic.cz>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:59:26 +0100
Message-ID: <87efb5v7y9.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zKnNftaUDuKeaJIrS275FeDWVb8>
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:59:47 -0000

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>; writes:

> On 13. 11. 18 7:03, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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 that moves those
>> to HISTORIC,
>> so this yang model can use the proper "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]
>
>
> Is there any *technical* use for this field? Do we need it in the YANG
> model?
>
> Maybe we can just omit it while transforming the registry into model and
> be done with it ...

FWIW, I asked IANA whether they have a fixed list of these status terms
and what is their semantics. I got one reply so far saying that they
will discuss it with YANG experts, which of course misses my point. In
YANG, status terms are reasonably well defined, so once we know what they
mean in IANA registries, we can try to map it to YANG.

BTW, there is now a proposal to introduce "preliminary" or
"experimental" status in the next version of YANG:

https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/59

Lada

>
> -- 
> Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

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