<[email protected]> writes:

> Hi Lada, 
>
> Thank you for the comments. 
>
> Pleases see inline. 
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]>
>> Envoyé : vendredi 25 mars 2022 11:26
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>;
>> [email protected]
>> Objet : Re: [netmod] TR: New Version Notification for draft-boucadair-
>> netmod-iana-registries-00.txt
>> 
>> Hi Med,
>> 
>> here are my comments:
>> 
>> YANG modules should be as tightly coupled as possible to the
>> corresponding IANA registries. In an ideal world, YANG would simply have
>> a statement for using a registry directly. This is, however, not
>> possible in the current state of affairs.
>> 
>> In particular, a separate module mirroring an IANA registry is almost
>> always needed.
>> 
>> Identities versus typedefs/enumerations: I think the text in sec. 4.11.1
>> of RFC 8407 applies to IANA registries as well. I would only add that
>> identities are preferable if *distributed* extensibility is needed, i.e.
>> if different parties are expected to define public and long-living
>> entries on their own.
>
> [Med] The current text in 8407 seems to just reason about fixed
> values AND single maintainers. What I'm hearing from both you and
> Jurgen is that this is not an update. I won't make a fixation on
> that and will proceed with updating the text to reflect the
> interpretation you shared. Thank you.
>
>> 
>> Identities could also be extremely useful if the registry entries are
>> organized hierarchically, possibly including multiple inheritance.
>
> [Med] Do you think we should include some text in the draft to call
> out this aspect?

Possibly, this is something that enumerations cannot model.
>
>> 
>> One caveat regarding identities: for reasons that are unclear to me,
>> YANG requires identity names (unlike enums) to be identifiers. That's
>> why it is not possible to use identities without workarounds e.g. for
>> Media Types, where it would IMO make a lot of sense.
>> 
>> Last paragraph in sec. 3:
>> 
>>    "Designers of IANA-maintained modules MAY supply the full Initial
>>    version of the module in a specification document that registers the
>>    module or only a script to be used by IANA for generating the module
>>    (e.g., an XSLT 1.0 stylesheet in Appendix A of [RFC9108])."
>> 
>> The first option turned out to be no-go in the DNSOP WG during the
>> preparation of RFC 9108. The main objection was that, despite all
>> warnings, implementors would blindly use the initial revision published
>> in an RFC even after some entries become deprecated and might be
>> potentially dangerous. It was thus proposed to e.g. keep the initial
>> module revision only in the I-D stage and ask RFC Editor to delete it
>> before publishing it as an RFC. Eventually, the XSLT stylesheet as a
>> template for the initial module revision was acceptable to everyone and
>> worked very well with IANA, too.
>> 
>
> [Med] Thanks for the feedback. The proposed guideline is to let the designers 
> be aware of both approaches, decide based on their specific context, and then 
> include a justification for their choice.

Yes, I suspect that different WGs may have different opinions on this.

>
>> Another advantage of the XSLT-based solution is that it allows for
>> generating an always up-to-date revision of the YANG module from the
>> online XML representation of the IANA registry.
>
> [Med] Agree. I will add a note about this. 
>
>  As a proof of concept, I
>> prepared XSLT stylesheets for a dozen or so registries [1]. Although it
>> works quite well, I do admit that it would be a drudgery to cover the
>> full scope of existing IANA registries.
>> 
>> Lada
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/llhotka/iana-yang
>> 
>
> [Med] Will add a pointer to this repo. Thanks.

Thanks, Lada

>
>> <[email protected]> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > We had in alto wg a discussion about consistent use of IANA-maintained
>> modules. This document provides some guidelines that I hope will ensure
>> some consistency about how we are interacting with IANA registries. The
>> goal is avoid transforming YANG modules (if not maintained by IANA) as
>> another source of information, which are likely to be out of sync.
>> >
>> > Some more details/context are provided in the I-D.
>> >
>> > Comments and suggestions are appreciated.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Med
>> >
>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > De : [email protected] <[email protected]> Envoyé :
>> > jeudi 24 mars 2022 10:41 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
>> > <[email protected]> Objet : New Version Notification for
>> > draft-boucadair-netmod-iana-registries-00.txt
>> >
>> >
>> > A new version of I-D, draft-boucadair-netmod-iana-registries-00.txt
>> > has been successfully submitted by Mohamed Boucadair and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>> >
>> > Name:              draft-boucadair-netmod-iana-registries
>> > Revision:  00
>> > Title:             Recommendations for Creating IANA-Maintained YANG
>> Modules
>> > Document date:     2022-03-24
>> > Group:             Individual Submission
>> > Pages:             5
>> > URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-boucadair-
>> netmod-iana-registries-00.txt
>> > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-
>> netmod-iana-registries/
>> > Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-boucadair-
>> netmod-iana-registries
>> >
>> >
>> > Abstract:
>> >    This document provides a set of guidelines for YANG module authors
>> >    related to the design of IANA-maintained modules.  These guidelines
>> >    are meant to leverage existing IANA registries and use YANG as just
>> >    another format to present the content of these registries.
>> >
>> >    This document updates RFC 8407.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The IETF Secretariat
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________________
>> > ___________________________________________________
>> >
>> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>> > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
>> > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
>> > par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi
>> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
>> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
>> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>> >
>> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>> > privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
>> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>> delete this message and its attachments.
>> > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>> been modified, changed or falsified.
>> > Thank you.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > netmod mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> 
>> --
>> Ladislav Lhotka
>> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
> this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

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

Reply via email to