Re: [netmod] IANA Considerations

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 16 August 2018 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 229AC130E7C for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 05:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gnnENu9mhNe4 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 05:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD14C130DC5 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 856BF1AE03DD; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:00:53 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:00:45 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20180816.140045.2220594458012874135.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: ietfc@btconnect.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <07ba01d43557$064ca460$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <98a58631-0c57-7ed8-5277-5dcb3ee9dd86@nokia.com> <07ba01d43557$064ca460$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/X7-El2962GoXfJWHNe-UY_OrWMg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] IANA Considerations
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: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:00:58 -0000

Hi,

tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>; wrote:
> I see that some recent YANG module I-Ds reference RFC6020 for
> registering a YANG module name, others reference RFC7950, and did some
> homework before suggesting that one or the other needed changing.
> 
> The IANA website refers the user to
> 
> RFC 6020, Internet Draft draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20
> 
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20
> points the user to RFC6020 and seems to add nothing to that.
> 
> RFC7950 points the user to RFC6020 and seems to add nothing to that.  In
> fact, the IANA Considerations section of RFC7950, unlike that of
> RFC6020, is not helpful on this point - the relevant section is 6.3.
> 
> I conclude that the better reference is RFC6020

Yes, the YANG module registry is defined in RFC 6020, which is still a
proposed standard RFC (not obsoleted by RFC 7950).  RFC 7950 does not,
as you noted, take over ownership of the registry.

(this procedure was discussed in some detail when we did RFC 7950)


/martib


(and that the IANA
> website might be clearer just referring to that).
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>