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

Mahesh Jethanandani <> Fri, 20 July 2018 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A538F131227 for <>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eTJ6ly-9q4WS for <>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E110213110F for <>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k12-v6so23322166oiw.8 for <>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=O4TkPm+yEc5TIlyZ1WcVupKi0MRAvJuz9q7x9CCS/GM=; b=WPt9eU8GxralkJQH2RSvCZsWKMFinXnJBEiZI2gL44PDIzfscZ4iinEZsm4oy8MC8S wJH6JNrC0k33S2F8qOFrWzKZVZ05jSco0kv6IdRHeyWRgCcdNvBPUhXt/Wm6fcH7dmw5 meor7k6GQDV6jrJuQhWMUgzmhC2U7jzInQUIMq1l/ta+SO4GWAag+jio4GGwO9zOArGR I4N3AspsZY7NLviVeNIMQUq87VD0G76umNxGWmr/9g9u9DKHAKiEQchZEbqKeQABOJjj Hrb5+Iiej0a+cfvv9hKWiS/82omRpYEN32+p43PrKwnhHRLJfttcH5EkesagKW7TtojW 0P3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=O4TkPm+yEc5TIlyZ1WcVupKi0MRAvJuz9q7x9CCS/GM=; b=rYn/PEc3kV23lQ+0y/6GOPfSHcyE4Phx5YGbJn5uCrYroqO5bKIwmW5JSAXimfTcXU i+b98k/BAvq+VJKpDH3sFhhdB+pMf5Le0S4hdlOYlhEoiPM6f5+9BS845Gf4ve92+bWh tcvYJ8c92kdNwmDfK73y8uJx1rV56oAte1mfYUsqOP4ICIfpbTCZhSdu8kvViS5TH2LO N2hVbhYQhi4u5luEM5np77dRWh64RSmR5mk9vrNgnslVGz9Nacq3srdRxQOtfOzrmRlV vsmziQ9mWd/048Ql0R8olO6Ox6Z4iyn34f4Zv4GoDM7bXzP8YClR38jNDWDMPbsGfgYa dyWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGsYtAc6QY3h67M0/IEX0APy65jxZp70+97U27ZtVyYNHROPayD 0yPKr8UKVd807oeu2PObR7GWGrUlZ/A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpehtu9WYPVa/bvz8SFL9Oe/ofNxrDJK38lwsXhd2gUKTB08k3JbJyHdbV/a9K8eBElGlnO2Bg==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:ef44:: with SMTP id n65-v6mr97436oih.120.1532116354231; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id r81-v6sm4750365oih.28.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14G60)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 15:52:31 -0400
Cc: Martin Vigoureux <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 19:52:43 -0000

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 20, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <>; wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 03:45:47PM +0200, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
>> 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.
> iana- has the advantage that everybody knows which registry is meant.
> Using registry- is perhaps more flexible in case IANA registry gets
> renamed but it leaves is much more open where the module is
> maintained. The first part of a module name is supposed to identify an
> organization. draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20.txt (RFC editor queue)
> says:
>   It is suggested that a stable prefix be selected representing the
>   entire organization.  All normative YANG modules published by the
>   IETF MUST begin with the prefix "ietf-".  Another standards
>   organization, such as the IEEE, might use the prefix "ieee-" for all
>   YANG modules.
> Concerning documentation, perhaps we could change the above to this:
>   It is suggested that a stable prefix be selected representing the
>   entire organization.  All normative YANG modules published by the
>   IETF MUST begin with the prefix "ietf-".  Another standards
>   organization, such as the IEEE, might use the prefix "ieee-" for all
>   YANG modules. YANG modules maintained by IANA for the IETF SHOULD
>   begin with the prefix "iana-".


I agree that the prefix suggests the organization responsible for maintaining the model, something reg- or registry- does not. Two more examples that already exist are mef- and etsi-. I understand there is the possibility that that prefix changes, but we then pick a new prefix, if we know what it might be. 

> /js
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list