On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Roman Danyliw wrote: [ cc:ing ietf@xxxxxxxx for wider discussion, see attachment for Design Patterns ]
Paul Wouters wrote:
During a plenary at the last or second last IETF, I raised an issue about people stuffing incomplete and obsolete/deprecated partial IANA registiries in yang drafts/RFCs. The IESG confirmed this as a problem to me and one of the IESG members said they were aware and would get back on this. I have not heard anything. The issue is still a problem. Originally, this came up in i2nsf/ipsecme, and has now resurfaced for me in dnsop.
The IESG talked about this issue during the last IETF meeting. See attached. The outcome of this discussion was that there is no single "right answer" and individual ADs should intervene on specific instances as appropriate.
Thanks for the answer. Unfortunately, it is not much of guidance and does not really address the issue I raised, namely that we are putting snapshots of IANA registries in RFC documents. One of your three Design Patterns still does this. Note also that Design Pattern #1 you quote is exactly the one I am trying to avoid from happening and Design Pattern #2 happened because I _did_ convince those people not to do Design Pattern #1. I would like to see the IESG discourage/forbid Design Pattern #1. The "yang native" advantage of this Design Pattern seems odd to me, because as far as I know there will be specific yang documents created elsewhere anyway that are supposed to be updated and used by automation tools? Paul
Attachment:
yang-model-as-iana-registries-v2.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
