Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> writes: > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> They should not actually be reading the RFC but get the latest revision of >> the module from this page: >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml > > You are asking for text to go into an RFC, which you then say they > (implementors) should not read. Clearly then the text should not go > into the RFC.
It is true that the RFC is actually intended for IANA. Martin Bjorklund suggested in the NETMOD mailing list that similar RFCs only contain a template for the YANG module rather than a snapshot of the registry. On the other hand, no syntax is defined for specifying such templates, so providing a registry snapshot as a concrete example seems logical. Moreover, IANA can use the snapshot right away as an initial revision. .... > > My suggestion was a link the proper IANA registries, which _are_ updated > by other RFCs to place things into obsolete/deprecated and receive new > entries based on other new RFCs. > > As you said the implementors need to go to the IANA/YANG module place, a > link to that would be more useful than including a current snapshot of > the IANA registries. I agree but, unfortunately, any proper solution might take quite some time. As a temporary solution, would it be possible to continue with the current draft (in DNSOP WG or elsewhere) provided that it will be emphasized that the RFC is intended primarily for IANA, and that implementors should look for the module at the IANA page? Lada > > Paul -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
