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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

thanks again for clearing the discusses.

Below an overview of how we have dealt with the COMMENTs still in the tracker; we now have a -24 out that addresses the remaining COMMENTS.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ## Comments
> 
> ### Section 6.3.3, paragraph 3
> ```
>    The initial entry in this registry is allocated to IANA:
> 
>    +=============+=========+============+===================+==========+
>    | Entry Point | Size    | Allocation | Organization      | URL      |
>    |             |         |            | name              |          |
>    +=============+=========+============+===================+==========+
>    | 0           | 1000000 | Public     | IANA              | iana.org |
>    +-------------+---------+------------+-------------------+----------+
> ```
> I would have expected the initial allocation to IANA (and the regions
> defined within) to be MUCH larger, given the overall size of the
> namespace.

I think we discussed this at the IESG breakfast in Prague — 1 000 000 should be plenty, and it is easy to add megaranges when that range finally is exhausted.

See also:
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/QUH5Up_zmVYr3MBJyCEXmB-rRe8>


> ### Section 6.4.2, paragraph 11
> ```
>    +=============+=========+==========================+
>    | Entry Point | Size    | IANA policy              |
>    +=============+=========+==========================+
>    | 0           | 1,000   | IESG Approval            |
>    +-------------+---------+--------------------------+
>    | 1,000       | 59,000  | RFC Required             |
>    +-------------+---------+--------------------------+
>    | 60,000      | 40,000  | Experimental/Private use |
>    +-------------+---------+--------------------------+
>    | 100,000     | 900,000 | Reserved                 |
>    +-------------+---------+--------------------------+
> ```
> These seem very small as well, given the overall size of the namespace.

We did add an RFC required range


| Entry Point | Size    | IANA policy              |
|-------------|---------|--------------------------|
| 0           | 1,000   | IESG Approval            |
| 1,000       | 59,000  | RFC Required             |
| 60,000      | 40,000  | Experimental/Private use |
| 100,000     | 200,000 | RFC Required             |
| 300,000     | 700,000 | Reserved                 |

See previously cited mail why this should be plenty.

> ### Section 6.5.1, paragraph 3
> ```
>    *  The link to the ".sid" file which defines the allocation.  The
>       ".sid" file is stored by IANA.
> ```
> See above, unclear if IANA is able to host files.

We also discussed this in Prague.

> ### Section 6.5.3, paragraph 9
> ```
>    Early Allocations are made with a one-year period, after which they
>    need to be renewed or will expire.
> ```
> In practice, that one year is too short and is already creating
> frequent IESG management items for extension approvals. Given the
> many more early allocations, this process will require, this will be
> disruptive for the IESG.

I wholeheartedly agree, but this document is not the place to change early allocations in general.

We have addressed the nits; as requested no details in the response.

One point maybe of interest:

> Uncited references: `[RFC8792]`.

idnits doesn’t seem to pick up the RFC 8792 references in the auto-folded sourcecode snippets:

  =============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================

(we cannot use ‘[RFC8792]’ here because the exact literal text is mandated in RFC 8792.)

Grüße, Carsten