[core] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-sid-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 18 January 2023 13:33 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietf.org
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E674C14CE28; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 05:33:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-core-sid@ietf.org, core-chairs@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, jaime@iki.fi, jaime@iki.fi
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 9.5.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <167404882957.1138.7718323157797790477@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 05:33:49 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/xB6VU731H7mJODlUCIjEvReyepY>
Subject: [core] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-sid-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:33:49 -0000
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-core-sid-19: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-sid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Updated discuss comments based on -19. I think that my main concern is still how permanent or transient allocated SIDs are, particularly when YANG modules are being developed. In particular, I think that it would be helpful for the allocated SIDs to be split into two (maybe three) lists: (1) Permanent allocations that MUST never change once allocated (e.g., if the schema path changes, the old entry is retained and no reallocated). (2) Temporary allocations that could change, e.g., when a file is being developed (either using a separate temporary SID range, or part of the permanent SID space allocated to the module). (3) The optional third section could be obsolete SIDs. I.e., ones that cannot be reallocated to a different path, but software generating a mapping between SIDs and schema paths should be able to just ignore them. Alternatively, rather than having a different section, entries could be marked with an obsolete flag in the permanent section instead. When IETF drafts containing YANG modules are being developed or updated then the authors can decide whether new SIDs are allocated from the permanent or temporary sections depending on how stable they think parts of the model are. But authors would only ever be allowed to renumber temporarily assigned SIDs. I also think that having a global flag on the SID file would be helpful to define whether the file is the canonical SID file produced with permission of the module controller (owner) or generated by a third party. This meta data may help consumers of SIDs understand their permanence. Of course, there is not guarantee that the generated meta-data will necessarily be correct. Regards, Rob Previous discuss comments: There are a couple of points that I would like to see discussed and perhaps addressed: (1) I would like further discussion regarding whether SIDs are bound just to the schema name, or the schema item definition. The draft states that if the definition is changed in a non-backwards-compatible (NBC) way then a new SID SHOULD be allocated. But I don't understand how this will work. Given that the .sid file would then contain exactly the same path but with different sids assigned (for every time the meaning of the definition changes), then how do consumers of the sid file know which sid to use for a given path (given that there is no indication in the .sid file)? Instead, I think that this is the wrong way to be handling NBC changes, and SIDs should be bound only to the schema path (i.e., the name of the item), and a new SID is only allocated if the name/path changes, and otherwise the same SID is used, even if the definition changes in a non-backwards-compatible way. (2) I think that this document should be clearer as to the relationship between SIDs and submodules (more details in the comment). (3) This draft makes use of the rc:yang-data extension. Was there any discussion about using "YANG Data Structure Extensions" (RFC 8791) instead, which is meant to be a cleaner formulation of the rc:yang-data extension, and without the dependency on RESTCONF? I would suggest that using RFC 8791 would be preferable if possible. (4) The policy in 7.4.2 for allocation a SID mega-range seems to aiming this towards organizations rather than individuals. The policy in 7.6 for the "IETF YANG SID Registry" requires an RFC. What is the mechanism if an individual or open source project wanted to get SIDs assigned for some of their YANG modules? I.e., should we be defining a separate mega-range, managed by IANA, with just Expert Review or Specification Required so that these modules could use SIDs allocated? Or do you envisage a separate entity taking up the responsibility for coordinating this? Regards, Rob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Regarding the relationship between sids and submodules, I think is best summed up by this comment in the appendix: "Note that ".sid" files can only be generated for YANG modules and not for submodules." I.e., I don't think that sids should be allocated for the name of the submodule, and any items within a submodule are effectively allocated sids as part of processing the module that includes them. This topic should be addressed early in the document, and probably the existing references to submodule in the introduction and the YANG module can be removed.
- [core] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-core… Robert Wilton via Datatracker
- Re: [core] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [core] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Michael Richardson