Re: [netmod] "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sun, 22 July 2018 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 DD5D3130F4F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 07:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 9KQoxO66p_pw for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 07:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A895130F46 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 07:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3022; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1532269216; x=1533478816; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=7vpVUh0kK746EuavK8y45W0MokJjKhpwFuZRtS7qQDI=; b=U2i+2J2s+IyRHI0Hjh4+ASSmyIqkina4eC3SEQDBR0EfK8UJ+oApdopg WrnJIv9Upwd769AtJJ1vBwchzy6WPGHrVoZkQqpXRj1q5lwxx6I9mpApS inHT2HCSaZFh4mmEU7Ixx1Opv0rTnIplToryvDGvdJA60OmTEM9/i63+W o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BtAgCXkVRb/4wNJK1cGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEIAQEBAYNNY38oCoN0iASMMoFog12SBIF6CxgLhANGAheCdSE0GAECAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQECbRwMhTcCAQMBASEROhsCAQgaAiYCAgIlCxUQAgQBEoMgAYF/D65qgS6?= =?us-ascii?q?KSQWBC4d3ghaBEScMgl6DGwEBAoRfMYIkAoxcjRAJAo8ujXKRegIRFIEkHTi?= =?us-ascii?q?BUnAVOyoBgj6LFYU+bwGNeIEbAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,389,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="427340616"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jul 2018 14:20:15 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w6MEKEEF007396 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 22 Jul 2018 14:20:15 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:20:14 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:20:14 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix
Thread-Index: AQHUIDAKdENQS5PIXkGtPzyGTnThaaSbiagA///ELYA=
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 14:20:14 +0000
Message-ID: <02902781-A915-46CE-9EFB-F1DDCD6B1E3C@cisco.com>
References: <98a58631-0c57-7ed8-5277-5dcb3ee9dd86@nokia.com> <0a82c50c-5cec-362d-208e-67d2c136a4bb@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0a82c50c-5cec-362d-208e-67d2c136a4bb@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.201]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EF539C2041B0EA4B8FA8E3627B457E8D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.153, xch-rtp-013.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/MSuhVeyTm1CXAuX1azkhx965SH0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 14:20:18 -0000

Hi Benoit, et al, 
I couldn't agree more. The IETF has much more exigent issues with respect to YANG models and the attendant protocol infrastructure than whether IANA might go away in the future. 
Thanks,
Acee 

On 7/22/18, 9:54 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of bclaise=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:

    Martin,
    
    I'm wonder whether this is really an important optimization, worth 
    changing now, in the hypothetical case that IANA is not called IANA any 
    longer in the future?
    Right now, "iana" n the YANG module name correctly states what this is about
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml
         => "maintained by IANA"
    I agree with Jürgen that documenting this in 6087bis is the right way 
    forward.
    
    Regards, Benoit.
    > Hello
    >
    > As part of a recent IESG review (of draft-bfd-yang) a point came up on 
    > the use of "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix.
    > This is typically used in the case where the module refers to an IANA 
    > maintained registry. However, the point raised was that the name of 
    > the registry operator might not always be IANA, and that using that 
    > name might not put modules on the most stable deployment footing under 
    > all possible circumstances.
    >
    > On top of that, as far as I can tell, the use of "iana" is an 
    > undocumented convention.
    >
    > So, I wanted to collect views:
    > on whether a convention should be documented,
    > and, with regards to the point raised in IESG, on whether that keyword 
    > should be changed going forward. In that context, what about "reg" 
    > (for registry) or "regop" (for registry operator)? Other proposals are 
    > welcome.
    >
    > Thanks
    > -m
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > netmod mailing list
    > netmod@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    > .
    >
    
    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    netmod@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod