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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 11 September 2018 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C21130E0E; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 16:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nzvC_nX7iNSQ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 16:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBF19130F59; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 16:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BA020090; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 19:28:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 6980582; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 19:09:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664E97C; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 19:09:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: Core <core@ietf.org>, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <622CDA79-7BE4-4A71-BFF7-0C80F63A1556@tzi.org>
References: <17342.1536697549@localhost> <622CDA79-7BE4-4A71-BFF7-0C80F63A1556@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 19:09:59 -0400
Message-ID: <21406.1536707399@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/J_brUdU2_Hq049P6LS-UAmvOlS8>
Subject: Re: [core] [Anima] documenting SID usage in IETF specification
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 23:10:06 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> SHOULD ietf-core-sid say something about this?

    > Yes, we should have a common way of handling SID allocations in RFCs.

It's not just allocations, but presentation.

    > draft-ietf-core-sid sounds like a natural way to place this, but what
    > goes into what document is often a question of who has time to write
    > something at a particular point in time.  So let’s discuss this with
    > the authors.

agreed.

    > In any case, this probably should stay at the level of a suggestion
    > more than prescribing a normative way of doing things — the conventions
    > we use for this may evolve faster than the rest of the technical
    > content of draft-ietf-core-sid.

I don't want a prescription either, but rather a BCP that evolves.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-