Paul Wouters <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote: > >> Questions to WG: >> >> 1) iana-class-type-yang document to OPSAWG? > > I would assume most people here will the same about the document, > wherever it is discussed ? So this option seems odd. > >> 2) follow-up work on YANG data models for DNS servers in DNSOP? > > Speaking for myself, as long as we are not populating RFCs with > obsoleted DNS data or just create RFC with copies of IANA registries, > I'm fine with helping on a document. But not if it is a blind copy > and paste from IANA (whether at DNSOP or OPSAWG)
I still have difficulties to understand this objection. IANA registries (presumably) serve some purpose, and the only way for using them in YANG data models currently is to translate them to YANG. If something is felt to be broken in IANA registries, then it should be corrected there in the first place. Making a YANG module as an improved version of an IANA registry sounds like a bad idea to me, also because it would be difficult to coordinate future updates. Or do you have another suggestion? Lada > > Paul -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
