Re: [netmod] IANA registries and YANG

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 2019-11-19 at 11:48 +0000, tom petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ladislav Lhotka" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Martin Bjorklund" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:29 AM
> 
> > On Tue, 2019-11-19 at 11:17 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I would like to discuss the issue of developing YANG modules that
> > > > mirror IANA registries. The main objection, raised in DNSOP WG in
> > > > relation to draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-02, was that
> the
> > > > RFC containing the initial revision of the module doesn't get
> updated
> > > > along with the IANA registry (IANA is expected to keep the module
> in
> > > > sync without updating the RFC). As a result implementors can use
> the
> > > > obsolete snapshot from the RFC.
> > > > 
> > > > I am aware of three solution proposals:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. use some kind of template instead of a YANG module
> > > > 
> > > > 2. include only two or three entries of the registry as examples
> so
> > > >    that it is clear that it is not the complete list
> > > > 
> > > > 3. keep the module in the document during the whole I-D stage but
> > > >    instruct the RFC Editor to remove it just before it becomes
> RFC.
> > > Do you mean that the RFC editor removes it and the RFC just points
> to
> > > the IANA registry?  And then the RFC editor hands it over to IANA so
> > > that they can use it as an initial version to be published?
> > 
> > Yes. The final RFC would then only describe and explain the design of
> the
> > module, which is useful in itself (because there are several possible
> options
> > for translating a registry to YANG).
> > 
> > > As long as the instructions to the RFC editor are clear, I think
> this
> > > can work.
> > 
> > We have to work out the details and discuss it with IANA, but it
> shouldn't IMO
> > be too difficult. And the draft in DNSOP can be used as a guinea pig.
> 
> I think that this is a bad idea; we have been handing over modules to
> IANA to maintain since 1999 and I have not seen much in the way of
> troubles in the intervening decades.

I guess everyone in this mailing list will agree that this issue is largely a
red herring, but it seems that our draft in DNSOP cannot move forward without
solving it. For those with masochistic inclination, here is a typical ML thread:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0AjdiR8htN_vjglimt1b7z10V_E

DNSOP chairs don't want to take a stance and hope that the IESG will resolve
this issue somehow - but this is of course not going to happen.

> 
> I want the RFC to contain the initial version of the module - otherwise,
> we have no record of the initial version.

Why do you need the initial version? After all, it is just a random snapshot of
the registry that is used to explain to IANA how the module is supposed to be
updated.

> 
> What we should do is make it clear that it is the initial version and
> will not be maintained e.g. in the description and revision clauses
> 
> 'The initial version of this module was published in RFCXXXX; the
> current version can be found at
> https://  ...iana  ...
> "

I suggested something like this repeatedly, without any significant success.

What else can we do?

Lada

> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Lada
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > /martin
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > I am personally in favour of #3. According to Randy Presuhn, who
> > > > proposed it, this procedure was used during the preparation of BCP
> > > > 47. It would require some extra coordination with with IANA but,
> apart
> > > > from that, it should IMO work well and avoid the problem mentioned
> > > > above.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks, Lada
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Ladislav Lhotka
> > > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> > > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > netmod mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > > > 
> > --
> > Ladislav Lhotka
> > Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67