Re: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi all,

These proposed changes are now implemented in the public version.

Cheers,
Med

De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
Envoyé : mercredi 20 mars 2024 23:13
À : netmod@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi all,

After reviewing all the feedback so far, I modified the proposed change as follows:

NEW:
   Prefix values SHOULD be short but meaningful to the intended user.
   Prefix values SHOULD NOT conflict with known modules that have been
   previously published.

The full change can be seen here: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://boucadair.github.io/rfc8407bis/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt&url_2=https://boucadair.github.io/rfc8407bis/prefix-pattern/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt.

Cheers,
Med

De : netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org>> De la part de Andy Bierman
Envoyé : dimanche 17 mars 2024 03:52
À : Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>
Cc : Jürgen Schönwälder <jschoenwaelder@constructor.university<mailto:jschoenwaelder@constructor.university>>; netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
Objet : Re: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 2:41 AM Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>> wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 19:13, Per Andersson (perander) <perander@cisco.com<mailto:perander@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
> Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>> on Friday, March 15, 2024 20:10:
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 13:26, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Re-,
>>> I’m not sure to agree with your last statement, Andy.
>>> The reality is that the OLD reco is inducing many cycles and waste of time for no obvious technical reason:  see an example herehttps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/eknpfAZIb9gX7GvUN1UoByCf5e4/<http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/eknpfAZIb9gX7GvUN1UoByCf5e4/>
>>> Let’s save the authors time with a clear guidance:
>>>    • Pick ietf- or iana- as a function of the module
>>
>> I disagree with this guidance.
>
> Can you explain your motivation?

Well first, what has been state earlier in the thread. But basically they add almost no value and gratuitously extend what is supposed to be a short identifier.

I am sorry for bringing this up.

I just grep'ed through about 1000 YANG modules to do a guestimate of the prefix usage,
looking for "meaningful" prefixes.

It is not that consistent across SDOs. IMO BBF is the best (by far).
The IETF has the most 2-letter prefixes.
DOTS and TE have structured prefixes (about 7 - 12 chars).
IMO these are good examples for new YANG modules.

The most important property is that the prefix is meaningful.

Thanks,
Chris.

Andy

>
>
> --
> Per

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.