Re: [core] progressing ietf-core-yang-cbor and ietf-core-sid

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>> On 2020-01-13, at 19:11, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> o SIDs never change.
    >>
    >>> That may require a little bit of expansion.  SIDs do change while I’m
    >>> editing the document on my laptop and not telling anyone else what
    >>> I’m doing.  But at some time, they freeze.
    >>
    >> Actually, if things go well on your laptop, they don't.  You might
    >> add/delete leafs and so you might roll through the SIDs quickly, and
    >> then, because you haven't published anything, decided to reset, but
    >> that's your business :-)

    > Exactly.

    > My question really was if we can state unambiguously when it stops
    > being my business.

Unfortunately, "my" in ambiguous here :-)
{/me considers demonstrating my abilities with German dative pronouns...}

I think that you mean "the document authors", but it could be that you mean
the WG's problem, or the CORE WG's problem.

I would like to suggest that WGs doing things with SID should ask for an
allocation at document adoption time.  This is the earlist that it can become
anyone's problem.

I think that a WGLC consideration would be whether to:
  1) reset the SID allocations for the document in question
  2) mark any deleted leafs as available

There is potentially recursive implication of this.
In an ideal world, documents will be proposed in a bottom-up order, but if
that does not occur, then this could cause this decision to cycle.

    > Yes.  The file format is fine, the question is whether we give enough
    > guidance on how to handle the evolution of “the” SID file for a YANG
    > module.

I think we shouldn't try to make up all the rules ahead of time.
We just need to some running code first.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-