On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 21:26 +0800, Michael Richardson wrote: > 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. IANA has been doing it for more than five years for a couple of YANG modules (six by now), and I am not aware of any troubles so far. Lada > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
