Hi, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for raising these points. > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : netmod <[email protected]> De la part de Martin Björklund > > Envoyé : jeudi 7 décembre 2023 17:05 > > À : [email protected] > > Objet : [netmod] New guidelines for IANA in draft-ietf-netmod- > > rfc8407bis > > > > Hi, > > > > There has been some discussion with IANA on the YANG doctors list > > regarding this text in section 4.8 in RFC 8407: > > > > A "revision" statement MUST be present for each published version > > of > > the module. The "revision" statement MUST have a "reference" > > substatement. It MUST identify the published document that > > contains > > the module. > > > > (the same text is present in rfc8407bis) > > > > It continues with the motivation behind the rule: > > > > Modules are often extracted from their original > > documents, and it is useful for developers and operators to know > > how > > to find the original source document in a consistent manner. > > > > As can be seen in e.g., > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > > iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fyang-parameters%2Fiana-dns-class-rr- > > type%402023-11- > > 08.yang&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ccf5ad65dd26d4a > > e3a1f508dbf73e4f79%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638375 > > 619746432780%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM > > zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X6s86KFMCkdu03 > > Z6hne6g16fU405pTiLPhv5gZYZV4k%3D&reserved=0, > > this rule has not been followed. > > > > The discussion ended with the recommendation to IANA to always add a > > "reference" statement that refers to the published module (e.g., > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > > iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fyang-parameters%2Fiana-dns-class-rr- > > type%402023-11- > > 08.yang&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ccf5ad65dd26d4a > > e3a1f508dbf73e4f79%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638375 > > 619746432780%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM > > zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X6s86KFMCkdu03 > > Z6hne6g16fU405pTiLPhv5gZYZV4k%3D&reserved=0). > > > > If people agree that this is the correct solution, I think we should > > update 8407bis with this. > > > > Specifically, I suggest to change 4.30.3.1 and 4.30.3.2: > > > > OLD: > > > > When the "iana-foo" YANG module is updated, a new "revision" > > statement with a unique revision date must be added in front of the > > existing revision statements. > > > > NEW: > > > > When the "iana-foo" YANG module is updated, a new "revision" > > statement with a unique revision date must be added in front of the > > existing revision statements. The "revision" statement must have a > > "reference" substatement that to the published module (e.g., > > ...) > > > > > > [Med] Looks reasonable to me. As you can see in the proposed PR > (https://github.com/boucadair/rfc8407bis/pull/31/files) I went with a > slightly modified wording because we do already have the following to refer > to the link to be used: > > Examples of IANA URLs from where to retrieve the latest version of an > IANA-maintained module are: [IANA_BGP-L2_URL], [IANA_PW-Types_URL], > and [IANA_BFD_URL]. [IANA_FOO_URL] is used in the following to refer > to such URLs. These URLs are expected to be sufficiently permanent > and stable.
I cannot find the reference [IANA_FOO_URL]. If we assume that it is similar to [IANA_PW-Types_URL], it would be: https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-foo/iana-foo.xhtml This points to the "meta" page for the module, which has a pointer to the latest version of the YANG module. I don't think it makes sense to put this URL in the "reference" statement in each revision, b/c it would be: revision 2023-04-01 { reference "https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-foo/iana-foo.xhtml";; } revision 2022-04-01 { reference "https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-foo/iana-foo.xhtml";; } revision 2020-04-01 { reference "https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-foo/iana-foo.xhtml";; } The proposal was to use the url to the module itself: revision 2023-04-01 { reference "https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/[email protected]";; } revision 2022-04-01 { reference "https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/[email protected]";; } revision 2020-04-01 { reference "https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/[email protected]";; } However, it would be useful to have the "meta" URL somewhere in the document; in the "description" of the module, or "reference". > > The change is consistent with this part of the bis: > > 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, ... > > > > > > > Further, some IANA modules use the IETF template for the module's > > "description", see e.g., > > > > That module has in its "description": > > > > This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8294; see > > the RFC itself for full legal notices."; > > > > But that is not correct. Other module use this instead: > > > > The initial version of this YANG module is part of RFC 7224; > > see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; > > > > I think 8407bis should recommend that IANA-maintained modules use this > > wording instead. > > > > [Med] Good point. Made this change so far: > > OLD: > For both cases, the document that defines an IANA-maintained module > MUST include a note indicating that the document is only documenting > the initial version of the module and that the authoritative version > is to be retrieved from the IANA registry. > > NEW: > For both cases, the document that defines an IANA-maintained module > MUST include a note indicating that the document is only documenting > the initial version of the module and that the authoritative version > is to be retrieved from the IANA registry. Also, the IANA-maintained > module MUST include the following note indicating the RFC that > registered the initial version of the IANA- maintained module: > > The initial version of this YANG module is part of RFC IIII; > see the RFC itself for full legal notices. > > The full change can be see here: > https://github.com/boucadair/rfc8407bis/pull/32/files Ok. Perhaps we should include an explicit template for IANA-maintained modules in an appendix, just like we do with IETF-modules in appendix B? /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
