Dear Paul, Benno, thanks for your replies.
> On 7. Oct 2019, at 19:31, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > We should IMHO be as close to the DNS experts as possible, to me that feels rather like DNSOP than like OPSAWG. A "YANG doctors” expert review is part of the publication process, so this will happen anyway. It’s also worth nothing that one author is one of these experts himself. >> 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) > > Paul In order for the IANA registry to be re-used by other YANG modules, a YANG modelled version of the registry is needed. There is precedence for doing this for other registries. e.g. The IANA ifType registry has a corresponding YANG module in RFC8343. A number of other registries also have corresponding YANG modules published or in draft (iana-identity-mib, bfd-parameters, smi-numbers). Updating and maintaining the contents of the IANA registry as a whole is an orthogonal question to creating a YANG representation of an existing registry and should be handled as a separate task. Finally, one reason why we would like to see this draft adopted is because we’d like to use it within a real world DNS server implementation. BR, Normen _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
