Re: [core] [IANA #1269224] Early review: draft-ietf-core-sid (IETF 116)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > On 24. Mar 2023, at 22:31, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> IANA has been extra vigilant this round.
    >> I am adding the WG to the list, since these are mostly my opinions.
    >> (However, I believe that I'm re-stating WG consensus)
    >>
    >> Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>> 1) Section 6.4.2 says, 'The range of 60,000 to 99,999 (size 40,000) is
    >>> reserved for experimental YANG modules. This range MUST NOT be used in
    >>> operational deployments since these SIDs are not globally unique which
    >>> limit their interoperability. The IANA policy for this range is
    >>> "Experimental use".' However, Table 3 says that the policy is
    >>> "Experimental/Private use." Which is correct?
    >>
    >> I think that while it's for "experimental" YANG modules, the implication is
    >> that they are for Private Use.

    > I think they actually were meant for private, experimental use.
    > Even in private use, you should not fill up this space with your private needs.
    > You should use those for experiments only.

I don't know if you are agreeing or disagreeing withme.

    >> I have reread RFC8126 section 4.1 vs 4.2.

IANA has two different things, Experimental Use vs Private Use.
For SIDs, I'm not really sure what the effective difference would be.

    >> I observe that yang catalog scrapes YANG modules out of individual drafts
    >> and essentially they get "published" at that point.

    > That is not core-sids concept of “published”, which is “all numbers are
    > now stable and you can treat this as final”.

Yes, I know.
My point is that things get made public in different ways.
I think that Private Use allocations should never be public, but Experimental
Use might be.

    >>> 3) Another possible issue: if we have a SID file for a YANG module
    >>> called ietf-example, and another document comes along and provides a
    >>> new version of ietf-example, do we update the link in the "IETF YANG
    >>> SID Registry" to point to the new version of the YANG module, or
    >>> continue pointing to the old one?
    >>
    >> Yes, we would do that when the document is published.

    > (And I would expect that old revisions of both are also accessible, somewhere.)

We've resisted writing that SID values are made "final" at WGLC, because I
think that we didn't want to write IETF-specific instructions into YANG-SID.
But, I think that is what we want for IETF stream documents.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide