Same here, let’s focus on immediate problems, there are plenty of those...

Regards,
Jeff

> On Jul 22, 2018, at 07:20, Acee Lindem (acee) 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Benoit, et al, 
> I couldn't agree more. The IETF has much more exigent issues with respect to 
> YANG models and the attendant protocol infrastructure than whether IANA might 
> go away in the future. 
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> 
> On 7/22/18, 9:54 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise" 
> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
>    Martin,
> 
>    I'm wonder whether this is really an important optimization, worth 
>    changing now, in the hypothetical case that IANA is not called IANA any 
>    longer in the future?
>    Right now, "iana" n the YANG module name correctly states what this is 
> about
>    https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml
>         => "maintained by IANA"
>    I agree with Jürgen that documenting this in 6087bis is the right way 
>    forward.
> 
>    Regards, Benoit.
>> Hello
>> 
>> As part of a recent IESG review (of draft-bfd-yang) a point came up on 
>> the use of "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix.
>> This is typically used in the case where the module refers to an IANA 
>> maintained registry. However, the point raised was that the name of 
>> the registry operator might not always be IANA, and that using that 
>> name might not put modules on the most stable deployment footing under 
>> all possible circumstances.
>> 
>> On top of that, as far as I can tell, the use of "iana" is an 
>> undocumented convention.
>> 
>> So, I wanted to collect views:
>> on whether a convention should be documented,
>> and, with regards to the point raised in IESG, on whether that keyword 
>> should be changed going forward. In that context, what about "reg" 
>> (for registry) or "regop" (for registry operator)? Other proposals are 
>> welcome.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> -m
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> .
>> 
> 
>    _______________________________________________
>    netmod mailing list
>    [email protected]
>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to