[netmod] New guidelines for IANA in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

[Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

There has been some discussion with IANA on the YANG doctors list
regarding this text in section 4.8 in RFC 8407:

   A "revision" statement MUST be present for each published version of
   the module.  The "revision" statement MUST have a "reference"
   substatement.  It MUST identify the published document that contains
   the module.

(the same text is present in rfc8407bis)

It continues with the motivation behind the rule:

   Modules are often extracted from their original
   documents, and it is useful for developers and operators to know how
   to find the original source document in a consistent manner.

As can be seen in e.g.,
https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/[e-mail],
this rule has not been followed.

The discussion ended with the recommendation to IANA to always add a
"reference" statement that refers to the published module (e.g.,
https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/[e-mail]).

If people agree that this is the correct solution, I think we should
update 8407bis with this.

Specifically, I suggest to change 4.30.3.1 and 4.30.3.2:

OLD:

When the "iana-foo" YANG module is updated, a new "revision"
statement with a unique revision date must be added in front of the
existing revision statements.

NEW:

When the "iana-foo" YANG module is updated, a new "revision"
statement with a unique revision date must be added in front of the
existing revision statements.  The "revision" statement must have a
"reference" substatement that to the published module (e.g.,
https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/[e-mail])




Further, some IANA modules use the IETF template for the module's
"description", see e.g.,
https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/[e-mail].
That module has in its "description":

     This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8294; see
     the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

But that is not correct.  Other module use this instead:

     The initial version of this YANG module is part of RFC 7224;
     see the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

I think 8407bis should recommend that IANA-maintained modules use this
wording instead.



/martin