Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]> on behalf of Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>
Sent: 14 September 2022 15:07

Dear OPSAWG members,

this email starts a two week period for a Working Group Last Call of

> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html

ending on Thursday, September 28th.

The authors believe the Internet-Draft is ready for a WGLC and the
chairs agree. The draft has been discussed visibly at IETF 114 and
review feedback has been incorporated in -07.

Please send your comments to the list and your assessment of whether or
not it is ready to proceed to publication before September 28th.

<tp>
Not Ready.

This I-D contains a YANG module for IANA to maintain along with YANG modules and other data which are not.  I think that this approach is always wrong.  The two sets of material have different life cycles.  The IANA-maintained module is effectively obsolete as soon as the RFC is published since the contents are then maintained by IANA; anyone seeing the module in the RFC will be looking at obsolete - sooner or later - material.  Users should always be looking at the IANA website.  There is no way to tell users this in the published status of an RFC.

The remaining material in the I-D is likely to be updated over time and then the authors have a choice of two bad approaches.  They can cut out the IANA-maintained module in which case the new document sort of obsoletes the old one but not quite and a lot more editing is needed; or they can republish the IANA-maintained module which by then will have been obsolete for some time and almost certainly wrong.  Hence an IANA-maintained module should always be published on its own.

Tom Petch

For the OPSAWG co-chairs,

Henk

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg