Re: [netmod] IANA registries and YANG

tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 11:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095CA1208F1 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:48:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RATWARE_MS_HASH=2.148, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com
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 l1hO966nS-V9 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:48:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR04-DB3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr60097.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.6.97]) (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 06EE41208C7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:48:26 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=I9/fof40myC/gPxo+4G8zA3rP3LBWneySL2YUIO9tQarVh08h69fhWmZ/kJk9yvB8x2Ctf05RFBeHYDhR1dGMpiPoOP6T5Pp1APdydHNM+cpxukY5qu/FQ0Df+53a4mcdPZIPxm6PtDQ5fIVKoJqjhJyrKXRfCg9eiRSpKJ+obP9WM79qD/h33w/2pGvz11usDdbvDyAt+BRA/EsUj8uWk68qwM12DMoiz5iJbTSCYsaTYlE3B85v+xwjgfse5aBGIS7OWN3kovqYEjRYei6xyyikO17jSZvqXLMf3tmmngnUKf/h/BjgWKcLcX2S6imj89SuLlMhiWLvC66a3iyiw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=jaieukvOe163S2HcnB1kogmjzOCJkX9kJKfE0DCq/14=; b=cxfELAL2WAFA/2JTkcRc2agRrEqZcPhKWwgQLgWAgz1lsunc1KE/4wIoPU6pQ/Komok7HkDOB6EeeZOU5Qhpuc44wAhimA3/sX/WE6X7xsK47N9/MU2PD+BpdxsfcusJiY4Qy6Cm2jlrR0YJG9RJSWoltURf/MfjgYLYwLwkyMR8pBdvDgEH/5vA9+Wo8uz48MLDjkbqA9xRwLtP+IAzwIub4H8B4XRAy61RgJ/M1IZRg/OmjeFserGuY9WOrQnXXhP01qMfAozk2UPzFAdyke2x2A8WHIUp9GCd59fqXF6znzM+1losaccZ2NyFmAg3s8A1AOwtSAUAf7Dr7OBLjw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=btconnect.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=btconnect.com; dkim=pass header.d=btconnect.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=jaieukvOe163S2HcnB1kogmjzOCJkX9kJKfE0DCq/14=; b=FV4rMHuAaNVp6vsLCP4TzykiW1uq9vYQSM0q6yRGSRt53RLTsmh53xPBsiqFjoIPijtfyRbn0GuBZ0K63rjOr/gg+HERb0shSqTJzwyqSUxYJYsnQ9NmRgA1si4iVKicAODTmumcT+aKv5/gJvlNEInWn7BDWus9om8/qc/T1Gc=
Received: from DB7PR07MB5147.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.178.42.32) by DB7PR07MB4585.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.135.133.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2474.12; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:48:24 +0000
Received: from DB7PR07MB5147.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5bf:72e6:a66c:401a]) by DB7PR07MB5147.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5bf:72e6:a66c:401a%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2474.015; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:48:24 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] IANA registries and YANG
Thread-Index: AQHVns8/II2In9WUrUWJ0d0YlVbCwA==
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:48:24 +0000
Message-ID: <06a001d59ecf$2fb04e00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <87pnhonpor.fsf@nic.cz> <20191119.111719.159939836067629500.mbj@tail-f.com> <73f815fa5b762de04c798698747c62225f212520.camel@nic.cz>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: CWLP123CA0087.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:401:5b::27) To DB7PR07MB5147.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:68::32)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfc@btconnect.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
x-originating-ip: [86.139.211.103]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e3b75659-7fc8-4601-14e4-08d76ce661f4
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB7PR07MB4585:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB7PR07MB458597D1444DE83025D03A3EA04C0@DB7PR07MB4585.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 022649CC2C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(39860400002)(346002)(136003)(376002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(51444003)(13464003)(446003)(256004)(6246003)(1556002)(186003)(476003)(6512007)(50226002)(4326008)(486006)(4720700003)(14496001)(305945005)(6306002)(9686003)(6116002)(3846002)(71190400001)(99286004)(81166006)(81156014)(229853002)(86362001)(71200400001)(26005)(6436002)(66066001)(102836004)(5660300002)(966005)(386003)(478600001)(6506007)(8676002)(4001150100001)(14454004)(316002)(66946007)(2906002)(66476007)(66556008)(6486002)(64756008)(66446008)(110136005)(8936002)(52116002)(76176011)(81816011)(25786009)(44736005)(7736002)(44716002)(81686011)(62236002)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB7PR07MB4585; H:DB7PR07MB5147.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 63ZMbzNjcmI7FbcSI4QsMMMK3wmr/hiGF6fuQPufHWPwQ20I06bH3CHwAwGSr3npmwkle+Q3KjqhKYGDzYQtimTPMDE9VJ7mAg61SpUleETFCTIsHpRKp2fD6nFz8gI0TANhDOkREy9r7SfG9srKaLjWymj//xttypTxZU7q6AJXZfTX8W0j4B0iHrbNaPSszPajm8JvRdS13b08Ja/EbfyzwUoxEt9vK/CxNMeXL1NgLNU100ofKVm+Q1+sMhlTRMRkqclZYAQDom3Ec8qg62vqp0a8QpNWGTOgKyyzYA8Hwd6WYxyD3xqkprB+A+2X+Si7G6vAWAvVsdzebltNKyjk0SAM+gWUA3MHhEj6MKnpoLZK77SDdLs+EtPLXPkBn2DuZ02Wz84CpefRuPrhBS3IZwwLC84EK2tSNLnnsjJSo+iWtC7G5ef4B/Pw3FtMdoJ66VLld5YrYwyZSRX2UVUesdxK32S7J9UkB/+M/F4=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <9D2DF215AF4B6B46A99CBB33D89B9A61@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e3b75659-7fc8-4601-14e4-08d76ce661f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Nov 2019 11:48:24.1136 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: MOy/G8vf8rEwGJOFeQJkdMe2f4qh8m+6QxK8ynblJoEXzshe9PMoVnUoUiyqiuszRb2MmwGvefUmK31o2TKk8g==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB7PR07MB4585
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1y-UvXsyq-EisO2k60kjHMCxNQc>
Subject: Re: [netmod] IANA registries and YANG
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:48:29 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: <netmod@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:29 AM

> On Tue, 2019-11-19 at 11:17 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would like to discuss the issue of developing YANG modules that
> > > mirror IANA registries. The main objection, raised in DNSOP WG in
> > > relation to draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-02, was that
the
> > > RFC containing the initial revision of the module doesn't get
updated
> > > along with the IANA registry (IANA is expected to keep the module
in
> > > sync without updating the RFC). As a result implementors can use
the
> > > obsolete snapshot from the RFC.
> > >
> > > I am aware of three solution proposals:
> > >
> > > 1. use some kind of template instead of a YANG module
> > >
> > > 2. include only two or three entries of the registry as examples
so
> > >    that it is clear that it is not the complete list
> > >
> > > 3. keep the module in the document during the whole I-D stage but
> > >    instruct the RFC Editor to remove it just before it becomes
RFC.
> >
> > Do you mean that the RFC editor removes it and the RFC just points
to
> > the IANA registry?  And then the RFC editor hands it over to IANA so
> > that they can use it as an initial version to be published?
>
> Yes. The final RFC would then only describe and explain the design of
the
> module, which is useful in itself (because there are several possible
options
> for translating a registry to YANG).
>
> >
> > As long as the instructions to the RFC editor are clear, I think
this
> > can work.
>
> We have to work out the details and discuss it with IANA, but it
shouldn't IMO
> be too difficult. And the draft in DNSOP can be used as a guinea pig.

I think that this is a bad idea; we have been handing over modules to
IANA to maintain since 1999 and I have not seen much in the way of
troubles in the intervening decades.

I want the RFC to contain the initial version of the module - otherwise,
we have no record of the initial version.

What we should do is make it clear that it is the initial version and
will not be maintained e.g. in the description and revision clauses

'The initial version of this module was published in RFCXXXX; the
current version can be found at
https://  ...iana  ...
"

Tom Petch











>
> Lada
>
> >
> >
> >
> > /martin
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am personally in favour of #3. According to Randy Presuhn, who
> > > proposed it, this procedure was used during the preparation of BCP
> > > 47. It would require some extra coordination with with IANA but,
apart
> > > from that, it should IMO work well and avoid the problem mentioned
> > > above.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Lada
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ladislav Lhotka
> > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > >
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka
> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod