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

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 22 July 2018 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 ABCC5130FD4 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 JBG6IGj7nJcs for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl0-x22a.google.com (mail-pl0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A68B0130FC8 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id f6-v6so7278160plo.1 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=fxROjRc9+PpefYC9I3rOaehY67V4fJDVf1vE8yAIIoQ=; b=UUyPkDku1dmo/t7vOOYMGEiLWr1SgrVmr8b7bzYvS3Jaz2IyQp4M3poXhgcjrsGQ+7 3cFCNxcSwBMFbiUWd09jvpuwHa2LvXTat9SQ294aQf5UerVThj98seZBvv8QABdYm7LN 6HbAFNM8Z9WkYgU6iNFk2RqyvO2LCndl1fJ42FSlkMlsBB1rdUpEUVxdGkj2fxBs18na JcZwyQVl4qdXQqGe9wX3ZJL7PVcLU752Wk9TRMgTB7YK1beLrke6zf+45vNwvyH/+Z/e bkqqf1TfvvIIkqV5Uds2mGfQhZkrB4Dvv+1GzD1NFKvyYBk+T+fVLoQOQMUR4e2MXEKT s6DA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=fxROjRc9+PpefYC9I3rOaehY67V4fJDVf1vE8yAIIoQ=; b=AiKDDDSixe9CKzcFPngHQc2nRTr8NWR6NbEGNakppOVtY19QLDWsWrA2sqotagSTZi WxTaTUm+kw+zYC/Svfpngb2+vBrKo0NQcXfj2UJGziY+8g2Rx0XQOsI4buffBSq/nZfN VdI8gzVdvyT7eue3u3rwSq+xT5Y73y+gKARKu3uVPs63Zi1SW9zkv20irwV34HEhcwOh CPDrPKOSR8yl56VyXtsnAyVyzh0ZVKPB1UqnR/E44MpYmiIVxI4BGfENedyJxfq88zqv v9xKjQMpYu3xWQgkMFnWZudaD/KI7UcukwfJ2JNzDWNs11pZ38Q8+DZ/g4qgi6b2n94Y 9viw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFqZAr9BnNyuMsjAXZVHiUGLCChzk2YL3aFL13Lx4R809YEOuwX tv6UAszwmrPpG9YPgVqWy5B82HsG
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcWYv8WtYswiJAX8HFFdYXWZr7X6SnvaMFkWRW1xDp+dFC184VoVMHTv8g75F86ucyi1ovbng==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:5381:: with SMTP id c1-v6mr9853880pli.137.1532285440925; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:640:10e:4512:6966:675f:655d:ba2c? ([2601:640:10e:4512:6966:675f:655d:ba2c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c68-v6sm17107368pfj.51.2018.07.22.11.50.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15G77)
In-Reply-To: <02902781-A915-46CE-9EFB-F1DDCD6B1E3C@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:50:38 -0700
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5A8E6E7C-6118-403A-8DE8-8182CF11E852@gmail.com>
References: <98a58631-0c57-7ed8-5277-5dcb3ee9dd86@nokia.com> <0a82c50c-5cec-362d-208e-67d2c136a4bb@cisco.com> <02902781-A915-46CE-9EFB-F1DDCD6B1E3C@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/WBr4WpsAvG3h_wayqHib98wPKnk>
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 18:50:45 -0000

Same here, let’s focus on immediate problems, there are plenty of those...

Regards,
Jeff

> On Jul 22, 2018, at 07:20, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod