On 13. 11. 18 7:03, Paul Wouters wrote: > 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]
Is there any *technical* use for this field? Do we need it in the YANG model? Maybe we can just omit it while transforming the registry into model and be done with it ... -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
