Hi -
Serves me right for responding before reading all the messages in
my inbox. I concur with Benoit's comments.
Randy
On 2023-01-16 2:49 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
Dear all,
On 1/13/2023 9:22 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
On 2023-01-13 10:20 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
On Jan 13, 2023, at 11:25 AM, Benoit Claise
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Tom,
Yes I do think that people outside the IETF may be ignorant of the
nuances of the way the IETF works and may not realise that a URL
to the IANA website must be used in preference to an RFC. There is
more to YANG modules than extracting the code from somewhere in
order to incorporate it into something. I have even seen RFC
reference the obsolete list of possibilities in the RFC that set
up an IANA registry
If this is the case (And Randy supports this), then we should update
RFC 8047.
Benoit's reference to RFC 8047 had me puzzled until I saw Kent's
response regarding RFC 8407. :-)
Agreed - as a hold for document update?
Currently RFC 8407, Section 3.9 says:
For every import or include statement that appears in a module
contained in the specification that identifies a module in a
separate
document, a corresponding normative reference to that document MUST
appear in the Normative References section. The reference MUST
correspond to the specific module version actually used within the
specification.
I agree with Kent's "hold for document update" assessment. The
difficultly with the existing text is that it correctly reflects
the concerns that were at the forefront when it was written -
e.g. making it as easy as possible for developers to get the
necessary context for implementing a module, but, as far as
I can recall, the group hadn't thought as deeply about
registries spun off from an initial document.
Want to take a swing at it?
Not me. :-) There are competing requirements, and the "best" answer
will very much depend on each situation. I think the *spirit* of
the RFC 8407 Section 3.9 is "point to whatever resource will be most
enlightening to the developer / user." But the letter of the law is
"point to whatever is needed to generate a tree of normative
reference dependencies" - that is, use what will be most helpful
to the people writing the standards. There's a point to both kinds of
pointers.
When in doubt, my preference is to go whichever way will make it
harder for implementations to get it wrong.
Agree on the principles, but there is no quick fix.
Look at Med's proposal:
If an IANA-maintained module is imported by another module, a
normative reference with the IANA URL from where to retrieve the
IANA-maintained module SHOULD be included. Although not encouraged,
referencing the RFC that defines the initial version of the IANA
module is acceptable in specific cases (e.g., the imported version is
specifically the initial version, the RFC includes useful description
about the usage of the module).
If we want to add an IANA link to update RFC 8407, Section 3.9, a couple
of remarks:
- It's not clear what "a normative reference with the IANA URL" is.
Is it
https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml?
Or is it
https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/[email protected]?
The more precise the later, right?
However, the latter, which is a typical example of IANA maintained
YANG module does NOT work, as the revision in the URL changes with any
IAN update
- So this leads to have both RFC and IANA, so
https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml +
RFC7224 (in the above example)
- Also, we should make more generic for some other SDOs, as IANA is for
IETF only.
And the guidelines are followed by others: BBF, IEEE, etc.
Regards, Benoit
Randy
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
