Re: [netmod] 6087bis namespace recommendations

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:15:26AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Currently, 6087bis says that standards-track, published and
> > unpublished modules SHOULD use the URN prefix
> > "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:".
> > 
> > There are two issues with this:
> > 
> >   1.  We already publish experimental modules w/ this prefix.
> >       (ietf-netconf-time and ietf-complex-types).
> > 
> >       So 6087bis should remove "standards track" from this
> >       recommendation.
> 
> Well, the current text is silent about non-standards-track modules

No, it says:

  Note that a different URN prefix string SHOULD be used for
  non-Standards-Track modules.

> so
> there is not really a conflict. While searching through 6087, I think
> it is more important to clarify the usage of 'publish'. One solution
> would be to use 'publishing' when we talk about the publication of
> RFCs and to use 'posting' when we talk about the posting of an
> Internet-Draft. But yes, this is a different can of worms.
> 
> >   2.  There was some discussion about recommending a different URN
> >       prefix for unpublished modules (i.e., modules in Internet
> >       Drafts).
> > 
> >       Should 6087bis recommend some special urn prefix for drafts,
> >       with a note to the RFC editor to change the namespace once it
> >       has been registered with IANA?
> 
> Do we have evidence that having such a rule makes the Internet work
> better?

I don't know, but apparently there can be confusion when an extracted
module from a draft is passed around.

What can we learn from the SNMP experience where the OID assignement
is done by IANA - good or bad?


/martin