Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:59:45 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.

        Title           : YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types
        Authors         : Ladislav Lhotka
                          Petr Spacek
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00.txt
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2019-12-17

Abstract:
   This document introduces the YANG module "iana-dns-class-rr-type"
   that contains derived types reflecting two IANA registries: DNS
   CLASSes and Resource Record (RR) TYPEs.  These YANG types are
   intended as a minimum basis for future data modeling work.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:16:34 +0100

Hi,

this draft replaces draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-02.

We addressed the previous concerns in that the initial revision of the YANG
module is no more included in the document. Instead, the document contains an
XSLT 1.0 stysheet that IANA is expected to use for generating the YANG module
directly from the DNS Parameters registry.

Ladislav and Petr

On Tue, 2019-12-17 at 04:59 -0800, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:06:17 -0500 (EST)

> this draft replaces draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-02.

Although it seems to have no defined that yet in the datatracker. I
think you can still do it afterwards.

> directly from the DNS Parameters registry.

This is excellent! Thank you very much for doing this. It prevents
outdated enumeration in RFCs and links to the IANA registries properly
and can be used as another example of how to do this properly for other
IANA registries.

Some nits:

 	This document is a first step in translating DNS-related IANA registries to YANG.

If this is only a "first step", what is the second step? That is what is
missing here and why is it missing?

 	The other type, "rr-type-name", is exactly analogical.

I'm not sure if "analogical" is a common word to use and might be a bit
confusing to non-native speakers like me. I'm also confused about
"exactly analogical". What would inexactly analogical be? :)

and "AAAA" type as "TYPE28" -> and the "AAAA" type can be written as "TYPE28"

they can be used only via their decimal codes -> these can only be specified in their decimal values

Paul

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:34:12 +0100

> think you can still do it afterwards.

I tried to enter it in the submission form, but the system couldn't find the
individual draft, I don't know why. May I ask our friendly chairs for help?

> and can be used as another example of how to do this properly for other

Right. And even if somebody happens to use the stylesheet again in the future,
the result should still correspond to the most recent update of the registry -
except that the revision history won't be present. 

> missing here and why is it missing?

There is a bunch of other registries on the DNS Parameters page, and more are
elsewhere, such as Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers.

We would appreciate advice from the DNSOP WG regarding what to do next. For some
registries the conversion to YANG probably makes no sense at all.

> "exactly analogical". What would inexactly analogical be? :)

Being another non-native speaker, I am open to suggestions.

> they can be used only via their decimal codes -> these can only be specified

OK, noted.

Thanks, Ladislav