----- Original Message ----- From: "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@xxxxxx> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 2:07 PM > 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. In fact, this practice, of having IANA maintain modules, goes back to at least RFC2677 in August 1999 so I would expect any troubles to have come to light by now. Tom Petch > Lada > > > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
