1) RFC type is Proposed Standard, and this is the correct RFC type.
2)
Technical Summary:
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.
Working Group Summary:
There were several discussions during the working group process,
but they were all resolved.
Special attention is addressed to the IANA registration process, see
also the IANA Considerations section. Instead of giving examples in
the document, it is more procedural in its description. This has been
chosen to ensure that, if there are changes in the IANA registration,
the RFC does not give any obsolete examples and be misleading for
software implementers who do not ultimately look at the IANA registry.
Document Quality:
This document is seen as a fundamental building block for future RFCs
in the DNSOP WG that intend to use YANG and NETCONF for DNS
provisioning.
The authors and the WG participants involved were well knowledgable
with regard to YANG and NETCONF. The reviewers who have done a
thorough review are Paul Wouters, Normen Kowalewski and Bob Harold, in
addition to other DNSOP participants who have given the document
during different phases feedback.
There was also an early review by IANA. All seemed to be in order,
but there were some comments about the XSLT stylesheet in Annex A,
namely (not) remove it at the publication of the RFC. The
authors/reviewers prefer to keep the XSLT-style sheet because they do
not expect changes to the style sheet (and if so, it is appropriate to
go through the IETF process again). It has been agreed to revisit
this during the Last Call to see what others think.
Document Shepherd: Benno Overeinder
Responsible Area Director: Warren Kumari
(3) The Document Shepherd did a detailed review of the document
for content as well as simple editorial checks (spelling/grammar).
The shepherd feels the document is ready for publication.
(4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns on the depth or breadth
of the reviews.
(5) There is no need for broader review.
(6) There are no concerns from the document shepherd.
(7) No IPR disclosures
(8) There is no IPR
(9) The WG Consensus on this document is very solid.
(10) There has been no appeals.
(11) All nits found have been addressed by the authors.
(12) No formal review needed
(13) All references have been identified as normative or informative.
(14) All normative references are in a clear state.
(15) There are no downward normative references
(16) This RFC will not change any existing RFCs.
(17) The document shepherd confirmed the consistency and references of the
IANA Considerations section are accurate.
(18) new IANA registeries will not require expert review
(19) This document creates the YANG modules
(20) This document creates the YANG module.