Hi Rob,
On 03. 06. 21 13:16, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> One issue that I think we should should discuss and resolve (sorry for the
> late
> discuss ballot):
>
> In section 4, it states:
>
> "status": Include only if a class or type registration has been
> deprecated or obsoleted. In both cases, use the value "obsolete"
> as the argument of the "status" statement.
>
> I know that we have had some previous discussion on this on Netmod, but, if
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-02 gets standardized then it will
> effectively evolve YANG's "status deprecated" into "must implement or
> explicitly deviate" and YANG's "status obsolete" into "must not implement".
> It
> wasn't clear to me that marking one of these fields as being deprecated in an
> IANA registry would mean that existing implementations must stop using it if
> they migrate to a new version of the generated YANG module. Hence, I think
> that at this stage, it may be safer to map IANA "deprecated" into YANG's
> "status deprecated"?
>
Yes, this was discussed repeatedly in NETMOD and DNSOP WGs. I think we
currently have to use RFC 7950 for the status definitions, and so in YANG
o "deprecated" indicates an obsolete definition, but it permits
new/continued implementation in order to foster interoperability
with older/existing implementations.
This is incompatible with the meaning of "deprecated" in IANA
registries, which is per RFC 8126: "use is not recommended".
I agree that this discrepancy should be solved in a new version of YANG,
possibly along the lines of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-02,
but we can't wait for that with this draft.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this document. I think that documenting this fields in YANG is a
> good thing.
>
> One minor nit:
>
> In an couple of places you have used 'analogically' but perhaps meant
> 'analogously' instead?
Yes, I will change all occurrences.
Thanks, Lada
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
>
--
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
