[netconf] Re: names for non-IETF modules

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: 01 August 2024 11:55

Hi Tom,

I would use "ise-" prefix here.

That would be consistent with this part in 6020:

   The module name prefix 'ietf-' is reserved for IETF stream documents
   [RFC4844], while the module name prefix 'irtf-' is reserved for IRTF
   stream documents.  Modules published in other RFC streams MUST have a
   similar suitable prefix.

<tp>
Med

thanks for that - looks good to me (although it looks like the I-D in question have hit a somewhat larger roadblock that I missed:-(.

Tom Petch


Cheers,
Med


Orange Restricted
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : tom petch <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : jeudi 1 août 2024 12:39
> À : Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : [netconf] names for non-IETF modules
>
>
> The authors of the I2NSF YANG modules have gone on producing I-D
> in the Independent stream which raises the question of what
> module and prefix names should be used.
>
> This work is closely related to  the RFC that the WG produced but
> the rules for YANG are very clear.  Work that is not on the righr
> track MUST NOT use names that would be appropriate for Standards
> Track and  I think that that is spot on.
>
> So, new prefix and module name needed.  It would  seem from
> IANA's response that this is a new situation.  New for YANG
> perhaps but I seem to recall something similar from 25 years ago
> before the days of YANG but cannot recall the resolution.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Tom Petch
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list -- [e-mail] To unsubscribe send an
> email to [e-mail]<br><div style='text-align: Center;font-family: Helvetica 75 Bold;color: #ED7D31;font-size: 8pt;margin: 5pt;'>Orange Restricted</div>