[yang-doctors] [IANA #1289473] Revision statements in IANA-maintained YANG modules

[Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

We came across an issue when attempting to validate RFC 9403's [e-mail] module before posting.

That module refers to [e-mail], and pyang is refusing to validate it on the grounds that [e-mail] doesn't have references for its revision statements. (Which it indeed does not.)

However, if we try to validate [e-mail] directly, we don't get any errors.

Which pyang reaction is correct?

One larger issue is that we weren't aware that we needed to add references for revision statements in the IANA-maintained modules. We have no expertise in YANG and have been relying entirely on validation tools (and on IANA Considerations sections for registry maintenance instructions in general).

Should we go back and add references to revision statements for all the IANA-maintained modules?

Do we need to do so only going forward?

Either way, we have two questions:

1) Many of the registries mirrored by the IANA-maintained modules have First Come First Served or Expert Review ranges that don't require that the applicant provide a specification. For those registrations, we list the name of a contact person in the registry's "Reference" field. In the module, would we continue to omit the reference field?

2) When we need to correct an IANA-maintained module, in the absence of a document to refer to, what can we do to make the revision statement valid?

Best regards,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager