Re: [netmod] IANA registries and YANG

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Tue, 19 November 2019 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 00A5A1208C3 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:29:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.997 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 CRDshvKuiNdK for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:29:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (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 CCDC31200D5 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:29:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from birdie (dhcp-9c3a.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.156.58]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75009140DBA; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:29:34 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1574159376; bh=gXRiRH5NRTBKmmrjcmcldE4FVR4zcv6smyo+TgD1ifA=; h=From:To:Date; b=us4AtDO4HNjBQQr9sQqghqIi/HJJ3yCAawIqRBUJPciXI2I5CZBTuJJ3qkyUDYSvu bi76OhU0VXpEFRA8qug4XiUXQe3ZwDYx61Fnlw1blyY6w8+4w33iGflfgHV9IBm7pb QvtjZ4HEa3Jcbk2QwTkac5g6ygnSR+BUcumbkPCk=
Message-ID: <73f815fa5b762de04c798698747c62225f212520.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:29:28 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20191119.111719.159939836067629500.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <87pnhonpor.fsf@nic.cz> <20191119.111719.159939836067629500.mbj@tail-f.com>
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/netmod/26_Zj_xePXRBNAvKdr_qlnHPJQc>
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 10:29:47 -0000

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.

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