IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: CRH Draft Updates - Renaming the SID

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Tue, 26 May 2020 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F923A08C4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 14:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EOYNBsOwIUsV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 14:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FE593A08C5 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 14:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C8B49; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:40:46 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1590529243; bh=768wTt8SrPbuEIc9++W 5DZrI0H9ShV4GgtIF3bIszwc=; b=hVQI2dZZZ6VazwcaFb4tyrmF5iO0FfVjKYj wPWU8Wzi4lhPLcLQh1sPc5s1agKgNra85Ct+F5TYejPY4z6hq9j4ywqwSHp4pdvv VxQRhtJMxqmkSv54T/WUobLi09qox8a7c7migC8GoVVa6AtaX+tmTMGf9IVXMx7t W3hVQYGY=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id W1g-cnuwowfs; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:40:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:3de2:643b:8141:1b51] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:3de2:643b:8141:1b51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF05F3C; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:40:43 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <30760048-5C4E-4800-8F68-6BAA85E2393D@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_65D7FEC4-BC85-48BD-AA4F-AB23DD75071D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: CRH Draft Updates - Renaming the SID
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 23:40:42 +0200
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB63481B9B670790CC2DD792FBAEB00@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <DM6PR05MB63481B9B670790CC2DD792FBAEB00@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lK5njnNUz2zk7Nmnv0oY2UERfio>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 21:40:55 -0000

Hi,

> A agree that CRH should use another term. We considered:
> 
> 	• CRH-FIB-ID
> 	• Compact Routing Segment ID (CR-SID)
> 	• Compact Routing ID (CRID)
> 	• Forwarding Identifier Destination Object ?? (FIDO)
> 
> Does anybody have a strong preference for one or the other?

CRH-FIB-ID is a bit verbose
CR-SID can still cause confusion *
CRID is short and clear
FIDO is the cutest :)

I'd go for CRID.

Cheers,
Sander

[*] SRv6 seems to be developing uSID, G-SID etc, so I would avoid anything containing "SID"

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email