Re: [core] [Anima] documenting SID usage in IETF specification

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > I think that we used to call these "Proposed standards" :-)
>     > I'm not sure we need to have this designation. I think that SID
>     > numbers are
>     > cheap enough that it's okay if some drafts consume some and then
>     > get
>     > abandonned. The numbers could be recycled 6 months after the draft
>     > expires.
>
>     > IMO you had it right up to the last sentence.
>     > There are not port numbers. There are 2^^64 of them.
>
> Agreed.  So when recycled, they go to the end of the 2^^64 list :-)
>
>     > The "experimental" SID space is especially problematic in this
> regard.
>     > Within a deployment there will be server code from all different
>     > dates,
>     > so being able to declare the SID space clean at 1 single point in
> time
>     > is not good enough.
>
> Stuff in the experimental SID space is a problem.
>
>
Yes -- it is the wrong way of looking at it.
There is really only "global" and "local" SIDs.

IMO it is better to reserve a range where it is clear there are no
expectations
that the SID assignments are real. (Imagine if we told everybody to name
their YANG module my-module.yang -- these experimental SIDs are like that)

There will be modules that do not get registered (for various reasons),
or that simply get used/tested before they are registered.


Andy



> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>