Subject: Namespace requirements, was: Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang (YANG - A data modeling language for NETCONF) to Proposed Standard

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:41:10 +0100

On 10.03.2010 20:34, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language
> WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
>
> - 'YANG - A data modeling language for NETCONF '
>     <draft-ietf-netmod-yang-11.txt>  as a 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
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2010-04-09. Exceptionally,
> comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> ...

Isolated comment on Section 5.3:

> 5.3.  XML Namespaces
>
>    All YANG definitions are specified within a module that is bound to a
>    particular XML Namespace [XML-NAMES], which is a globally unique URI
>    [RFC3986].  A NETCONF client or server uses the namespace during XML
>    encoding of data.
>
>    Namespaces for modules published in RFC streams [RFC4844] MUST be
>    assigned by IANA, see Section 14.

I don't see why this is a requirement. The whole point of using URIs as 
XML namespace identifiers is that you don't *need* a central authority 
for assignment.

>    Namespaces for private modules are assigned by the organization
>    owning the module without a central registry.  Namespace URIs MUST be
>    chosen so they cannot collide with standard or other enterprise
>    namespaces, for example by using the enterprise or organization name
>    in the namespace.

That's true, but IMHO just repeats best XML practice.

>    The "namespace" statement is covered in Section 7.1.3.

Best regards, Julian