Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I will apologize in advance because this document may be sort of a casualty of
this DISCUSS. I should have raised my point below at least two years ago if not
four years ago when the first iana-* YANG module was registered, but the
thought did not occur to me until now.

It gives me some pause to see the name "iana" embedded in the file name, module
name, namespace, and prefix of the module being defined in Sec. 2.12. I realize
there is precedent here, but I question whether tying these kinds of modules
specifically to IANA as the protocol parameter registry operator by name puts
them on the most stable deployment footing under all possible circumstances. I
am personally pleased as punch with the service we get from IANA, but that
doesn't mean "IANA" will always be the name of the registry operator. The more
modules that get created with this embedding, the more of them that may need to
change in the unlikely event that the name of the registry operator changes.
Lots of RFCs would need to change too, but embedding the name extends the
potential problem to the modules themselves.

It wasn't clear to me whether there is some ops-area-wide convention around the
embedding of "iana" in the names of modules to be maintained by IANA. I don't
see this specifically referenced in RFC 7950 or RFC 6020. So I'd like to
discuss whether a different naming convention could be established and used in
this document and others going forward.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some further questions on Sec. 2.12:

Looking back at the other RFCs that have defined YANG modules to be maintained
by IANA (7224, 7317, 8294, 8348), they use two different postal addresses for
ICANN. Why? Furthermore, is "ICANN" really the right contact name, or should it
be PTI?