Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
I also am unhappy with this situation.
As far as I can tell it means that IANA will be maintaining YANG modules.
I don't understand how this is going to work for real products.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
