[netmod] Re: vendor proprietary YANG modules: how are they named?

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Sent: 09 August 2026 22:04
Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Different vendors use different names/namespaces. See this folder for
    > how different vendors have named their modules.

I'm trying to resolve the question of uniqueness in RFC8366bis' "extensions"
registry.
Here is what I've written now:
https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/commit/ada220e5#diff-f2a46f5f7515ce785de390697118abc6ef7052d42b52ddc672828dc7c09d0b02L1158-R1156

   Extension name strings for IETF process (standards track, experimental,
   IRTF) documents are single words, given by the YANG Module Name: They do
   not contain dots.

<tp>

Well, no.  IRTF process is different and is not a part of the IETF process.  Proposed changes thereto should be on the IRTF list.

And there are several different categories of Intended status for an IETF document.  Yes there is Standards Track and Experimental but there are more than that.  I think that you need to get the scope correct before discussing the detail.

Tom Petch

   For vendor proprietary extensions, (including ISE submissions), the
   resulting string still needs to be unique.  This can be done by
   making the YANG module unique, basing it on a fully-qualified domain
   name (FQDN) [RFC3696], such as "fuubar.example.com-mud-thing" rather
   than "fuubar-mud-thing"


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

**       My working hours and your working hours may be different.         **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **