On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
WG item:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
I'll leave that call up to the chairs bit it sounds like a good idea.
I have reviewed the document.
First, the yand model is correct in the draft. But unfortunately, the IANA
registry
itself has flaws.
I am also confused by the difference between deprecated and obsoleted. I guess
the
yang model interprets the IANA regitry, but the registry has no official column
designation for this. I wonder if it should be given one. I also then suggest
that
the terms obsoleted and deprecated be merged into one term.
I see some RRTYPES are listed as EXPERIMENTAL in the IANA registry while these
are
really OBSOLETED. I wonder if we can do a quick draft that moves those to
HISTORIC,
so this yang model can use the proper "obsoleted" entry for these. I am
referring to:
MB 7 a mailbox domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) [RFC1035]
MG 8 a mail group member (EXPERIMENTAL) [RFC1035]
MR 9 a mail rename domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) [RFC1035]
RP 17 for Responsible Person
X25 19 for X.25 PSDN address
ISDN 20 for ISDN address [RFC1183]
RT 21 for Route Through [RFC1183]
NSAP 22 for NSAP address, NSAP style A record [RFC1706]
NSAP-PTR 23 for domain name pointer, NSAP style
PX 26 X.400 mail mapping information [RFC2163]
GPOS 27 Geographical Position [RFC1712]
KX 36 Key Exchanger [RFC2230]
A6 38 A6 (OBSOLETE - use AAAA)
DLV 32769 DNSSEC Lookaside Validation
The following entries are deprecated or obsoleted by an RFC, but not marked as
such in the IANA
registry:
AFSDB 18 for AFS Data Base location [RFC1183][RFC5864]
SIG 24 for security signature [RFC4034][RFC3755][RFC2535][RFC2536][RFC2537][RFC2931][RFC3110][RFC3008]
KEY 25 for security key [RFC4034][RFC3755][RFC2535][RFC2536][RFC2537][RFC2539][RFC3008][RFC3110]
NXT 30 Next Domain (OBSOLETE)
(Odd how NXT is marked obsolete but not SIG or KEY. These are a set and should
be treated the same)
(I'm skipping NULL, MINFO/HINFO on purpose to due Olafur :)
NITS:
It seems that the IANA address in Section 3 implies Canada (CA) or more likely
suffers
from the assumption that no country specified means "United States". Please
specify
the country :)
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
