Re: [netmod] IANA registries

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> some of you have probably seen the discussions around
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-02
> 
> We proposed to adopt it as a work item in the DNSOP WG, but despite
> some support this is probably not going to happen. The substantial
> objections are:
> 
> 1. It is not good to publish a YANG snapshot of an IANA registry as an RFC
> because future implementors will use the module from that RFC and implement
> registry entries that may have been deprecated in the mean time. 
> 
> 2. The meaning of "deprecated" and "obsolete" defined by IANA (RFC
> 8126) differs from the definition in RFC 7950.
> 
> I already raised #2 in this mailing list, and I think it should be
> addressed in the next version of YANG.
> 
> Regarding #1, I tried to explain that the RFC is only intended to contain an
> initial revision of the corresponding YANG module, but it didn't help. One
> suggestion was to avoid representing the registries as enumerations or sets of
> identities, and use only integers.

That's a bit odd.  But perhaps it can be solved by actually not
filling in all values in this module, but rather make it a template
and instruct IANA to fill it in with the contents of the registry at
the time of publication.

/martin

> I wonder if we can come up with a reasonable solution. Without
> having the important registries as YANG modules, it is difficult to
> work on other modules - for DNS, in this case, but it could apply to
> other areas, too.
> 
> Thanks, Lada
> 
> -- 
> Ladislav Lhotka
> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 