Re: [core] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-sid-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

let my answer the DISCUSS first.

> On 2023-10-26, at 16:43, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ** Section 6.4.3
> 
>   The ".sid" file MUST NOT be published as part of the RFC: the IANA
>   Registry is authoritative and a link is to be inserted in the RFC.
> 
> Can the basis for this decision be explained.  Why isn't the authoritative
> source of the SID's coming from the RFC?

There are many reasons why this was the ultimate resolution of a long discussion.

First, we got a lot of pushback on any procedural requirement that might delay publication of an RFC with a YANG model.

While this is probably less of a problem with type-1 (and possibly type-2) developers, we can’t expect every YANG module developer to pull the SID file into the RFC.

Also, the “.sid” file format is rather verbose.  (At the time we didn’t have SID-CSV yet, which might have led to a different outcome.)  As long as we don’t have an “attachment” concept for RFCs, this can seriously bloat the page count of the document (which in turn leads to issues with perceived complexity and just general slugginess of handling the document).

We need a place where “.sid” files can be obtained for RFCs that already have been published.  Why not use the same place for distribution of all “.sid” files?

Grüße, Carsten