From: Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com> Sent: 12 January 2023 17:03
Hi Tom, On 1/12/2023 5:51 PM, tom petch wrote: > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Benoit Claise > <benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: 12 January 2023 14:45 > > Dear all, > > >From the initial problem statement: > During a WG adoption poll we have received a comment that the URL > should be added in the reference statement when importing a YANG > module maintained by IANA > The important question to me is: is this reference text supposed to be read > by a machine or a human? > It seems to me that the answer is "a human". > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6020#section-7.19.4 > > If this is true, why do we care about having a URL in there? > > <tp> > One of the requirements in the design of URL was that they could be easily > used by humans, written on a napkin and handed over from one human to > another to be consumed later so URL are designed for human consumption. > > Also, the version of the module in an RFC is obsolete as soon as the RFC is > published because IANA has change control so including an RFC number is > directing users to out-of-date information, misleading them. A well-written > RFC will make this point and direct the reader to the IANA website (but most > RFC are not well written). Often the aim of putting data into IANA is to > make it more readily available to others outside the IETF process and while > experts like you will know the caveats, others may think that a reference to > e.g. > X.690 is a reference to the current, latest version. So, if you want to > mislead such people, point users at the RFC. Oh, because you conclude that, if we put a RFC number in the reference, the community will (be stupid enough to) conclude that it has to extract the YANG module from the RFC text directly ... as opposed to look for a location where it's already store? IANA, yangcatalog. Ok, if you think that this is really a problem... <tp> Yes I do think that people outside the IETF may be ignorant of the nuances of the way the IETF works and may not realise that a URL to the IANA website must be used in preference to an RFC. There is more to YANG modules than extracting the code from somewhere in order to incorporate it into something. I have even seen RFC reference the obsolete list of possibilities in the RFC that set up an IANA registry Tom Petch Regards, Benoit > > Tom Petch > > Regards, Benoit > > On 1/12/2023 1:20 PM, Italo Busi wrote: > Hi all, > > Happy New Year > > During a WG adoption poll we have received a comment that the URL should be > added in the reference statement when importing a YANG module maintained by > IANA and we are not sure how to address this comment > > See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/zD6gAfEUlYJ4W3qQlz6Y_gfX5TY/ > > I have checked RFC8407 but I have not found any guideline on what to > reference when importing an IANA module > > I have checked a couple of examples I knew (RFC8343 and RFC8348) and noted > that the IANA modules are imported with no reference > > I have also noted that within the IANA YANG model registry, the reference for > the IANA modules is the RFC where the module has been initially defined: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml > > What would be your suggestion? > > Are there any guidelines I have missed? > > Do you know if there are other examples of published RFCs importing an IANA > module? > > Thanks in advance > > Italo > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
