Re: [core] [IANA #1269224] Early review: draft-ietf-core-sid (IETF 116)

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 24 March 2023 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C47DC15152B for <>; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 06:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7tlUSs77S0HY for <>; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 06:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC2D8C14CE4C for <>; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 06:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD82C38996; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 10:04:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 6DTN2mb0jLyQ; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 10:04:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7674D38995; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 10:04:41 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mail; t=1679666681; bh=KlKn/XiUcfG/hy8i1cR7RNJAyM7FylCKCa32i9ZZD3g=; h=From:To:Reply-To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=pUK6pt+edslzqPIqJLxbml2G7M5tHty7uiOmCKlhiUPUeuRPK3o7x4uM6hgR0EA0k iKNvQGz3z4LGWcvpFGkJJgkXV7Wd4s8qkbllwtHWPlkFn7F+N2GkotIfqnIY4srHVc DJaHNLEd5pU+PtbraO7NVf7gpvJcDhsQAD4MYTa53WYF2AkY6hRmrG5MAxu1riKIx0 BGKZsnU4kVFN0YbTVo1ESMDFyzoHC5oUlquPomUynaxIJz8rL+6j6R1hdhJhnH215T evFk/LfxZyWhBhrv8Z5FgiUruo2ag+HT6CQAvbQoGLpb8O7EMAWmgVxjZqJmlWaj/r 14rPqEtAyzEEw==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338C0205; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 09:31:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To:, Amanda Baber via RT <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 09:31:30 -0400
Message-ID: <10459.1679664690@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 06:39:38 -0700
Subject: Re: [core] [IANA #1269224] Early review: draft-ietf-core-sid (IETF 116)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:31:39 -0000

IANA has been extra vigilant this round.
I am adding the WG to the list, since these are mostly my opinions.
(However, I believe that I'm re-stating WG consensus)

Amanda Baber via RT <> wrote:
    > 1) Section 6.4.2 says, 'The range of 60,000 to 99,999 (size 40,000) is
    > reserved for experimental YANG modules. This range MUST NOT be used in
    > operational deployments since these SIDs are not globally unique which
    > limit their interoperability. The IANA policy for this range is
    > "Experimental use".' However, Table 3 says that the policy is
    > "Experimental/Private use." Which is correct?

I think that while it's for "experimental" YANG modules, the implication is
that they are for Private Use.  I have reread RFC8126 section 4.1 vs 4.2.
I think that we want the Private Use policy.  The implication being that the
values would never escape the lab or be used across the Internet.

Our goal is to make the friction required to acquire space so low that
essentially nobody would use these values.  They might be used in test data,
in examples, libraries, but never on the wire.

    > 2) Possible timing issue: Section 6.4.2 says that the publication of
    > the YANG module is required for SID allocation. It also says that the
    > RFC must contain a link to the .sid file. Section 6.5.1 calls for a
    > link to the .yang file in one of the registry fields.

It does say:

      -  The Expert MUST verify that the YANG module for which this
         allocation is made has an RFC (existing RFC) OR is on track to
         become RFC (early allocation with a request from the WG chairs
         as defined by [BCP100]).

I think that we expect early allocation for nearly every WG document.
My idea is that early allocation occurs at WG adoption, at which point all
values are unstable.

    > However, while we register the YANG module name when the IESG approves
    > the document, we don't post the YANG module itself until after the RFC
    > Editor publishes the document.

I observe that yang catalog scrapes YANG modules out of individual drafts
and essentially they get "published" at that point.

    > Does this present a problem if a document wants to publish a YANG
    > module and a .sid file simultaneously? Can the .sid file be published
    > before the YANG module file is present in the IANA registry, or would
    > we also wait until after RFC publication to publish the .sid file
    > (which means that the RFC's URL for the .sid file wouldn't actually be
    > created until a day or two after publication)?

The sid values can be allocated before the YANG module is published.
I agree that the RFC-editor's URL for the .sid file wouldn't be present until
the document is at the RPC.

    > 3) Another possible issue: if we have a SID file for a YANG module
    > called ietf-example, and another document comes along and provides a
    > new version of ietf-example, do we update the link in the "IETF YANG
    > SID Registry" to point to the new version of the YANG module, or
    > continue pointing to the old one?

Yes, we would do that when the document is published.

Michael Richardson <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide