Hi Mahesh, > I think the reason that Rob is suggesting that IANA defer picking up > any module, including IANA module after IESG approval, is to address > some of the questions you have regarding the steps in Section 5.2. If > IANA were to defer pulling out the IANA module from the I-D, it will > allow for all the edits, formatting, validation to happened on them, > just like they happen on IETF modules. It will also address your > question on what happens when edits are applied after IESG approval > but before publication.
I wouldn't argue that we post the IANA-maintained module at approval, since some aspect of it could theoretically change before publication. But my impression, like Sandy's, is that the RFC Editor wouldn't have any reason to touch text that won't be published in the RFC. I was under the impression, though, that modules based on IANA registries are generated by a script, and unsure as to what kind of editing might be required if there's something wrong with script output that isn't caught by the authors. Our experience with YANG is limited enough that I wasn't sure what the possible categories of things that could go wrong might be. <snip> > Manually editing and adding is one option. But I believe that there > was a script (from Kent?? ) that could be used to update the module > with new entries in the registry. We ran the script Kent included in RFC 9644 (and possibly a similar script in at least one other RFC?), but ran into two issues: an unanticipated reference type (a draft string associated with a recent registration) that required an edit to the script itself, and a bug that resulted in several lines having indentation issues. The next time we were asked to use a script from a document, the script referred us to a private Github, which wasn't OK for us. I was under the impression that authors have used that script to generate IANA-maintained modules since then, but I'm not sure why I think this. If authors have a bespoke script that they've used, or a general one, I wonder if it makes sense to have IANA run it at publication instead of asking the authors run it again. If it's trivial, then we won't have to go back to the authors to ask them to confirm that the content is correct; we can just validate and post. On the other hand, if there's a chance that something could go wrong, as with the RFC 9644 script, it's not clear to me that it makes sense to have IANA (distinctly non-expert in YANG) do it in the first place. If it doesn't make sense to have the authors re-create the module (assuming registry updates), at publication or earlier, we should probably just manually update. thanks, Amanda _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
