Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: netconf@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538EA18159EB; Sun, 6 Apr 2025 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.189 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hZlTW9_Q1nLw; Sun, 6 Apr 2025 06:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 604B918159E6; Sun, 6 Apr 2025 06:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p5089ae78.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ZVtMj40YwzDCcL; Sun, 6 Apr 2025 15:23:45 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <20250405233148.70257888@nuclight.lan> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 15:23:45 +0200 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 765638625.059438-5a89cc5f3ff4a590b593d826104c7257 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <17877.1740164613@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <71969CDA-5B3C-4160-A474-DA44A47DC7D6@tzi.org> <24966.1743788090@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <20250405233148.70257888@nuclight.lan> To: Vadim Goncharov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7) Message-ID-Hash: CFJPQO3LJODP2L6EFPTZGZZZENKC35NR X-Message-ID-Hash: CFJPQO3LJODP2L6EFPTZGZZZENKC35NR X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: core , CBOR , netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bnetconf=5D_Re=3A_=5Bcore=5D_=5BCbor=5D_Re=3A_adding_PEN-based_S?= =?utf-8?q?ID_allocation_to_RFC9595?= List-Id: NETCONF WG list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2025-04-05, at 22:31, Vadim Goncharov = wrote: >=20 > stone-age style static SID number allocation "once and forever". A nice example of how the idea of static global allocation of code = points totally fails is Unicode (*). Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten (*) Trying to write this in ASCII, or I would add an emoji expressing = sarcasm. Obviously, the rules for curating the Unicode space are very different = from those for the SID space, but Unicode is the textbook example for = why we are moving forward *towards* those global code-point spaces as = opposed to away from them.