Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > Hi, > > some of you have probably seen the discussions around > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-02 > > We proposed to adopt it as a work item in the DNSOP WG, but despite > some support this is probably not going to happen. The substantial > objections are: > > 1. It is not good to publish a YANG snapshot of an IANA registry as an RFC > because future implementors will use the module from that RFC and implement > registry entries that may have been deprecated in the mean time. > > 2. The meaning of "deprecated" and "obsolete" defined by IANA (RFC > 8126) differs from the definition in RFC 7950. > > I already raised #2 in this mailing list, and I think it should be > addressed in the next version of YANG. > > Regarding #1, I tried to explain that the RFC is only intended to contain an > initial revision of the corresponding YANG module, but it didn't help. One > suggestion was to avoid representing the registries as enumerations or sets of > identities, and use only integers.
That's a bit odd. But perhaps it can be solved by actually not filling in all values in this module, but rather make it a template and instruct IANA to fill it in with the contents of the registry at the time of publication. /martin > I wonder if we can come up with a reasonable solution. Without > having the important registries as YANG modules, it is difficult to > work on other modules - for DNS, in this case, but it could apply to > other areas, too. > > Thanks, Lada > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
