Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> writes:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
>> This starts a Working Group Last Call for
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang.
>>
>> Current versions of the draft are available here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang/
>
> This looks good to me.
>
> One minor item. Is it possible to add text in a way that instructs
> implementer they SHOULD NOT add "Obsolete" entries when populating?
I think we need to assume that an implementer is familiar with the YANG spec,
and this is just one of the rules to follow. Specifically, RFC 7950 says:
o "obsolete" means that the definition is obsolete and SHOULD NOT be
implemented and/or can be removed from implementations.
This should IMO be sufficient and we needn't repeat in in this document.
>
> Or maybe that could be an instruction to IANA or whoever runs the
> "the initial revision" of the yang module?
>
> The idea is that we want to try and stop the proliferation of decades
> old stuff into new code/documents just because it has an IANA entry.
Such items will be clearly labelled in both the IANA registry and YANG module.
If they are used in new implementations, it might mostly be, I suspect, due to
some external pressures rather than implementers' ignorance.
Ladislav
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
