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

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Thu, 13 September 2018 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
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 E8107130E28 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 cawWiMllUnL3 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 878C0130E29 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id q13-v6so5249223lfc.2 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rmWT0dhfvxX6Cbje4V8KzTsHcHKlBAQIvW5I+oTM58o=; b=qBvWKgBWj167Crp5duIsrOR5e9MckFPvqOVBpZtQnOuxVdcspV6lXjMHQzR8e4gdf3 dKY0qX744Qfl5elzbbUP82Azj1GZVBR71XyDgnLJfB68SWdke3mybcOJBkJUj0kC+oeH pDZ8BB8WQqchcCGg1/FZaQHvojI31UCI9ZUZc8g5HObxDAWOH2Zb2uezOqqg2ZuMdes4 GeB/9NqIeyacdJXEKEHK1JHZfP35MyC65zUSEMnDXC/83hGGt8cqd51NAHm59D/F2P5G bfdRvcvt9S4TXdnpDk9tXZaBPpvGzxq3PCQwqXfnSEf6o1b7g1+MIxiDReES8lOnRsz9 SDGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rmWT0dhfvxX6Cbje4V8KzTsHcHKlBAQIvW5I+oTM58o=; b=pBTylyV6IgigLRD26bkiCRB8oylecYtlVgk0xdPbgqCJXn2WrepE2gVzj++OM2cXFd ku7+EEaVSv6RvK5FS5mCITUMjO2sPPfIRf2rhxeA9RWnmgJVDSppp1iSAJckfaAVgZB2 wa/JvP+5AxRzVU6frWVPFtCDzfZUi8Qn/lgG5XwRq0VNNeMN/euO+uRmj4Z1xd2KBipG HQdCrdFUl8h4o9HYqNaQaQKhThGQpi3fxN3ju5viWbVypluPd+oPTw+hpremKdkR9IOD QGliZxUT60aHF2COWi5Bj0jerJK31tkgC8AcqQJW8rzG8ogTJQH05V0P7eKnIH3X40Qm O3PA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BrRgiBSmaZEqMVKhXdWYtBfVRKod+oTdVWgEOuSZVi5k8jq7N6 8c0CnoR3JZ6msGGOOE50pj25+OZf+FoDhn9RJxDv7vBA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYF67vZ+1JnA3t/Fpny/XWod1+zrCsOS4CyM9OzgMvzYaxQFxzi7GGw3CMNUFfITSLJ/TmGntULS5sXD31QiyM=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:4c41:: with SMTP id z62-v6mr5246355lfa.127.1536853610568; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a19:48c9:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7766.1536851909@localhost>
References: <17342.1536697549@localhost> <622CDA79-7BE4-4A71-BFF7-0C80F63A1556@tzi.org> <CABCOCHTrjYZmK4e+L7pj=V=sWxg97jw2AFGen2PFe7ceBrB7bg@mail.gmail.com> <50f58c78b6825ce1cdbc33ea852c3145@bbhmail.nl> <84F58F84-4637-4D65-8F86-8E86B346528F@tzi.org> <7766.1536851909@localhost>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHStd-_VPcf6TGXkc5gF5RwaiGM0Gf9T-LwX1ujYo+BkjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Core <core@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000087b8640575c29dea"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/Skw_35NlvQY_jxd_aP-Mv875c0s>
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: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:46:55 -0000

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> {removed anima from CC list}
>
> Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> 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
>
> Agreed.
> 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 comi.space mechanism is even lighter
> weight.
>
>     > — 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.
>
>

IMO you had it right up to the last sentence.
There are not port numbers. There are 2^^64 of them.
Recycling SID numbers would be a recipe for disaster.
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.

For "textual YANG" this is not a problem because there is very low
probability
that module names or module namespace URIs will collide.




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