IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Yang update from IESG ?

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Mon, 18 November 2019 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77CE1120835; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:07:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 anbxDqXbnD10; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:07:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 515D81200F5; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:07:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from birdie (dhcp-9c3a.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.156.58]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBB5E140DD0; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 15:07:33 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1574086056; bh=m05signQizPIUrXZJ1jP/P3mCvN8SH0NqR4Ot1uI33Y=; h=From:To:Date; b=ZeKZurTlu88eRFi4e6UNfclXzf9lfXg7b/eA7EeSNAdftfIP29ujGXovA3cqUbhSR LNm1jez35y1T0hbMdTWqpQLrkirevT/Od4zTAr3ls2z9I9CpdEpg2HvxvYhA+YtNdC H2kLRV3HtBCpviTwpdP1OKg/YAammI1m42nzbIgs=
Message-ID: <e745d480c113b09eb4f6761cf48ef1e997fc3e6c.camel@nic.cz>
Subject: Re: Yang update from IESG ?
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:07:29 +0800
In-Reply-To: <10541.1574083581@dooku.sandelman.ca>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911131435240.22669@bofh.nohats.ca> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01E70B0061@marchand> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911180102380.9256@bofh.nohats.ca> <10541.1574083581@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at mail.nic.cz
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pabdIDFde87n2C2t8AaJUAlJKis>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 14:07:40 -0000

On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 21:26 +0800, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
>     >>> During a plenary at the last or second last IETF, I raised an issue
>     >>> about people stuffing incomplete and obsolete/deprecated partial IANA
>     >>> registiries in yang drafts/RFCs. The IESG confirmed this as a problem
>     >>> to me and one of the IESG members said they were aware and would get
>     >>> back on this.
>     >>> 
>     >>> I have not heard anything. The issue is still a problem. Originally,
>     >>> this came up in i2nsf/ipsecme, and has now resurfaced for me in
>     >>> dnsop.
> 
>     >> The IESG talked about this issue during the last IETF meeting.  See
>     >> attached.
>     >> 
>     >> The outcome of this discussion was that there is no single "right
>     >> answer" and individual ADs should intervene on specific instances as
>     >> appropriate.
> 
>     > Thanks for the answer. Unfortunately, it is not much of guidance and
>     > does not really address the issue I raised, namely that we are putting
>     > snapshots of IANA registries in RFC documents. One of your three Design
>     > Patterns still does this.
> 
> I also am unhappy with this situation.
> 
> As far as I can tell it means that IANA will be maintaining YANG modules.
> I don't understand how this is going to work for real products.

IANA has been doing it for more than five years for a couple of YANG modules
(six by now), and I am not aware of any troubles so far.

Lada

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email