Paul Wouters <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
Hmm, I think the module should only reflect the registry contents, so any problems should be fixed in the registry first. > > 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. Actually, I copied the corresponding text from RFC 7224, but I am not sure whether the deprecated status is used at all in IANA registries. If not, we can remove that part and leave only "obsolete". Unless somebody knows the answer right away, I will ask IANA about it. > > 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 YANG doesn't define experimental status (maybe it should). > that moves those to HISTORIC, so this yang model can use the proper Yes, this would be a good thing to do. I assume that "historic" can be interpreted as obsolete. BTW, the semantics of the status terms in YANG is defined here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.21.2 Thanks, Lada > "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 -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
