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

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 13 September 2018 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73A4130DC8 for <>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ivsnDD5SgjNX for <>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AD631294D0 for <>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB0C20491; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:37:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 59A2B4B4; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:18:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5404B44F; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:18:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Core <>, Andy Bierman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <17342.1536697549@localhost> <> <> <> <>
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: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:18:29 -0400
Message-ID: <7766.1536851909@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] [Anima] documenting SID usage in IETF specification
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:18:33 -0000

{removed anima from CC list}

Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
    > What Andy pointed out is that we also need to have an idea of how to
    > evolve a draft in a way that minimizes damage from changing those
    > numbers during the development of that draft.  So we need to start
    > allocating and managing SID numbers early in their lifetime, at least
    > from the point of time when a draft is becoming an “implementation
    > draft” (as opposed to just an idea that wants to be discussed).  That

I think that we will typically be need about ~100 per draft, sometimes as
many as 1000, but never 10,000.  100 is a very small number compared to the
size of the SID space.

I think that the early allocation process will work fine, once we have a
registry to allocate against.  The mechanism is even lighter

    > — have a more explicit way of designating drafts as Implementation
    > Drafts.  Basically, any SIDs allocated before that are without
    > protection, but once we have an Implementation Draft, the SIDs used in
    > that will not be re-used.  (Intermediate versions between
    > Implementation Drafts would again have any new SIDs in unprotected
    > state until another Implementation Draft is declared.)

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.

    > — have a way to include the SID file in the document (draft, RFC).
    > This is not beautiful, but unless we invent another representation for
    > that information, that is the interchangeable form.  (If we do invent
    > another representation, maybe we should always use that?)

I suggest it be included as an appendix.

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-