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

[Ivaylo Petrov <[e-mail]>]

OK, a question to the chairs below.

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 1:30 AM Michael Richardson
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Ivaylo Petrov <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> I think that the major issue is that I am still not convinced that
>     >> IANA is prepared to operate pyang itself.  Conversations at IETF105
>     >> and IETF106 did not convince me that they (IANA) completely understood
>     >> what they are being asked to do.  For instance, I'm not convinced that
>     >> there is a support process for IANA to get bugs fixed in the sid.py
>     >> module.
>     >>
>     >> (I would be pleased to be convinced otherwise)
>
>     > I remember that during the discussion with IANA we considered that the
>     > authors and the expert will be responsible for the running of the pyang
>     > tool and IANA will only take the .sid file and store it. The .sid files
>     > will be provided to IANA when there is a request to register the .sid
>     > file - however that is done. Do you see an error in our reasoning other
>     > that the fact that we might be burdening the authors too much?  Does
>     > this seem acceptable to you?
>
> okay, so the expert reviewer needs to be able to run pyang --generate-sid-file, etc.
> I don't know if IANA has a process to accept files online, but I guess
> attachments to tickets will work.
>
>     >> (3) a document could ask for an early SID allocation, referencing a
>     >> YANG module which is in another WG, or worse, not yet adopted, and
>     >> therefore not subject to Early Adoption rules!  This may be a problem
>     >> we do not to fix (Just get the document adopted), but I think that we
>     >> should be clear about this.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> My recommendation is that all YANG modules, upon being *ADOPTED* by a
>     >> WG, have a SID allocation done.  Yes, the document will get revised,
>     >> but the SID system is designed to deal with this.
>
>     > Yes, that issue does not seem obvious. Currently I don't see a blocking
>     > issue with allocating SIDs for all YANG modules once a draft is
>     > adopted, so maybe this is truly our best way to avoid problems.
>
> okay, if we are in agreement, then I think that we need text in the SID
> document's IANA Considerations that says this.

Do you see any issues adding such a text and do you want me to add it
before you
can start a WGLC or how do you want this to happen?

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

--
Best regards,
Ivaylo