Re: Yang and embedded IANA registries: today's episode: draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang

[Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe strongly that the method of referencing the registries that the
i2nsf document does is preferable over the method of the dnsop document.

While this may be true, it would be helpful if you could reply to Petr's message [1] in the dnsop thread you started.  In particular, if IANA itself updates the YANG modules directly, at the same time as updating the base registry (i.e., without the initial RFC itself being updated), what issues remain?

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nu8BTdaHAVrxxoqxnknkDkK-4g8.   

 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-10

is a document that does nothing other than what you describe as wrong.

True, and worse, that draft hasn't yet switched the YANG module to being a collection of IANA-maintained modules, as has been discussed on the list.  This change hasn't been made yet only because there is an even larger issue (i.e., lack of a universal crypto algorithm type registry) that needs to be resolved first.  This larger issue is something that the chairs have requested an early SecDir review (and, hopefully, presence during next Monday's NETCONF session) to help resolve.

I haven't been able to convince the authors that this is a bad thing.

This is an interesting and somewhat overreaching characterization of past interactions.

Kent