Skip to main content

YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types
RFC 9108

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,,,,
Subject: Protocol Action: 'YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-05.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types'
  (draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-05.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Robert Wilton.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

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

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.

RFC Editor Note