Hi Andy,
Hi,
By "this one" I assume you mean the question "Why Proposed Standard?"
I meant the other questions in this email, most importantly.
This YANG module is meant to be imported by other standard YANG modules,
which creates a normative reference in each importing RFC. We try to avoid
standard modules that rely on non-standard modules. At first, (e.g,
RFC 5277,
RFC 5717) the YANG modules were not normative. But since 2010,
(RFC 6020) all YANG modules are normative and XSD is no longer used.
Thanks for your answer.
Regards, Benoit
Andy
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
<mailto:bclaise(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>> wrote:
Dear all,
Sadly, I have not seen a reply to this one.
So let me start the discussion, copying both the ietf-discussion
and the netmod WG mailers.
See in-line.
Dear all,
Here is some feedback from the IETF discussion list.
I would appreciate if the author and document shepherd could
follow up. Ideally on the IETF discussion list.
Regards, Benoit
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Last Call:
<draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-03.txt> (IANA Timezone Database
YANG Module) to Proposed Standard
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:36:31 -0800
From: SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
<mailto:sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> <mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
At 12:46 03-12-2013, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language
>WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
>- 'IANA Timezone Database YANG Module'
> <draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-03.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> mailing lists
by 2013-12-17. Exceptionally, comments may be
There is the following question in the document shepherd write-up:
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
I did not see an answer to that question.
Not sure what you propose here. Proposed Standard seems right to me.
From http://www.rfc-editor.org/RFCoverview.html
RFC Categories
Each RFC has a "category" or "status" designation. The
possible categories (see *RFC 2026*
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt> "The Internet
Standards Process -- Revision 3") are:
* INTERNET STANDARD, DRAFT STANDARD (deprecated; see RFC
6410 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6410.txt>),
PROPOSED STANDARD
These are /Standards Track/ documents, official
specifications of the Internet protocol suite defined by
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
<http://www.ietf.org> and its steering group the IESG.
* BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
These are official guidelines and recommendations, but not
standards, from the IETF.
* INFORMATIONAL, EXPERIMENTAL
These non-standards documents may originate in the IETF or
may be independent submissions.
* HISTORIC
These are former standards that have been actively
deprecated.
The WGLC was from 5 July to 22 July. There wasn't any comments
during the WGLC. The only comment I found was one posted on 9 August.
In Section 1:
"The iana-timezones YANG module defines the iana-
timezone type, which is a serialization of the existing IANA Time
Zone registry [RFC6557] into YANG format."
The terminology in RFC 6557 defines a TZ Database sometimes referred
to as the "Olson Database". There isn't any mention of a "IANA Time
Zone registry". I suggest using the same name as in RFC 6557.
That makes sense.
>From Section 3:
'The iana-timezones module is intended to reflect the IANA "timezone
database" [RFC6557]. When a timezone location is added to the
database, the "iana-timezone" enumeration MUST be updated as defined
in RFC 6020 Section 10 to add the newly created timezone location to
the enumeration. The new "enum" statement MUST be added to the
"iana-timezone" typedef with the same name as the newly added
timezone location. A new enum value MUST be allocated by IANA and
applied to the newly created enum entry. New entries MAY be placed
in any order in the enumeration as long as the previously assigned
enumeration values are not changed.
If a timezone location is removed from the IANA timezone database,
the corresponding existing enum statement is kept and a status
statement is added to mark the enum entry as 'obsolete'.'
The maintainer of the TZ database is responsible for the TZ
Database. The person does not work for IANA.
Correct, but see BCP 175: Procedures for Maintaining the Time Zone
Database:
<http://www.iana.org/go/rfc6557>
The TZ Coordinator is an IANA Designated Expert
Are you questioning the term "IANA timezone database", which should be "TZ
Database" according to BCP 175?
I don't think that
IANA keeps track of the contents of the TZ Database as it was not
asked to do that work.
I think it does: http://www.iana.org/time-zones
I don't see the value of using RFC 2119 key
word for the IANA Considerations.
I suggest not creating the registry proposed in this draft. The TZ
database has strived to keep out of political issues. Adding such a
registry will pave the way for such issues.
Well, we need to specify the system clock in the following YANG
module
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt/),
and hence we require a way to represent the TZ in YANG.
Regards, Benoit
Regards,
-sm
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:netmod(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod