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

Hi,

A bit ironic...
We should change the name of an acronym that has been in place since 1988
in order to guard against instability.

Andy

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 7:20 AM, 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
>