Re: [netmod] status terms in YANG and IANA registries

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Mon, 22 July 2019 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 BC44C1202B3 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ifXCKScLS-SQ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44F0C120280 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09441864 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:08:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.198]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 9axc-R_nCVbH for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FA62012C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id KgYw50jNfnax for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (SXCHMB02.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.121]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 652BE20129 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from anna.localdomain (10.50.218.117) by sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:08:34 +0200
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id 87FDB2DC623; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:08:34 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:08:34 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: <netmod@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190722190834.shen3ajylbxlr5e7@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: netmod@ietf.org
References: <871s6wt1qw.fsf@nic.cz> <87pnm13nwx.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87pnm13nwx.fsf@nic.cz>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-ClientProxiedBy: SXCHMB02.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.121) To sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/vbvdECwZPcClzAJff_rGH0CUUE8>
Subject: Re: [netmod] status terms in YANG and IANA registries
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:08:47 -0000

Lada,

it seems the IANA 'deprecated' and 'obsolete' as defined in RFC 8126
section 9.6 both map to YANG's 'obsolete'.

/js

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:49:18PM -0400, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I haven't received any responses to my message below but, given the recent
> discussion in DNSOP and IETF mailing list, I believe it is important to
> address this discrepancy in order not to give ammunition to those who oppose
> mirroring IANA registries in YANG modules.
> 
> Lada
> 
> Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > sec. 7.21.2 of RFC 7950 defines the "deprecated" and "obsolete" statuses
> > as follows:
> > 
> >    o  "deprecated" indicates an obsolete definition, but it    permits
> > new/continued implementation in order to foster       interoperability
> > with older/existing implementations.
> > 
> >    o  "obsolete" means that the definition is obsolete and    SHOULD NOT
> > be       implemented and/or can be removed from implementations.
> > 
> > Then, RFC 7224 contains these instructions in the IANA Considerations
> > section:
> > 
> >       "status": Include only if a registration has been       deprecated
> > (use                 the value "deprecated") or obsoleted (use the
> > value "obsolete").
> > 
> > However, RFC 8126 defines the meaning of the status terms in IANA
> > registries (sec. 9.6) in the following way:
> > 
> >    Specific entries in a registry can be marked as "obsolete"    (no
> > longer in use) or "deprecated" (use is not recommended).
> > 
> > I would say that "deprecated" means something else here than in YANG.
> > For example, the RSA/MD5 algorithm in [1] is marked as "deprecated"
> > because it was found weak, and implementing it to "foster
> > interoperability" can hardly be recommended. Instead, "SHOULD NOT
> > implement" applies here, too.
> > 
> > I think it would be good to either align the semantics of "deprecated"
> > in YANG with IANA registries, or at least map both IANA terms to
> > "obsolete" in YANG.
> > 
> > Lada
> > 
> > [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml
> > 
> > --  Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> -- 
> Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>