But that's work put onto the IANA pile, and some I* organization may want to understand theIANA 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.
commitment.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:08 PM Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@xxxxxx> wrote:
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
