IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Sat, 16 March 2024 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DCDFC14F6F6 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fiwlrAB0LTzV for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32f.google.com (mail-ot1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D1B2C14F6B5 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6e67451b084so1538743a34.2 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks.com; s=google; t=1710611539; x=1711216339; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=igPjCsAMpZdrNgliOGXmnrEXtYtQ9T6nO9LirvVxTpY=; b=OBI+vcvNiayz7c7cJ1TMizXHnwCcyOCj+O0XxZctd8QXQUdTiP6zN44JKnZltSlStO 39d52ZuifLUxNy4DypFJqmufMLujvVIQkviB/x0jcKvjEa4v8Wk37qEtOOxTa1iHfAd9 CE0l/da+BMQdHstJu5i4h0NaVtNuCtV49YLRuJHrYmr6T5vbmovW4kOUvbwbf2S6lLSd YcXM4iiQH2qalfOJGxFzvVEovxNywK9zVZeLqu3RZLVDuFkR1XAjA9yK4vYiE1nRYLHW Ol0c6boRhtiOrGf7Qx9xDGU9OXaaIlZGR8hvqeBEmMSeLoFF60f3e780w0c4nQxKFTHv dsQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710611539; x=1711216339; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=igPjCsAMpZdrNgliOGXmnrEXtYtQ9T6nO9LirvVxTpY=; b=YF/20+s6g740FBbQ2oEdZfU3Tw6+psX7R+Dke0lQOiZIK1wtR4LOvO5FRNn/Tns6T0 ckhXlmuG2qYmm+b/zMwlFhgOdEMzbdA4EejJVNi5i8gJ7eum7JDeJgXjttGgEbyJVra/ e62E5bvmO1MAZaCz5QauCvkGH+XC7UXhCSD7+VJiXxHx1nkW4wjEb8MLUa1px/u4eaYi ++PsoqicuC7mRces8TgQuP2qPi8dBWWMsLU7DzWvjf7niWiRdMoObFaTvQQZH5+NZmfu jxTXB7HPUTPS2rxAMpPoxBxx4Bp/JefW9fiXBvtgflj7WwxG3wUfh1KRoDp7Wr45Cljr Ukgg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXWFqgP6Cui1a5cEw3e+hYYEUi7Pwl1iWJYrTTyXWFhvXs18vngp4+FWsgy39iWeqhW9zHpNm2jclhCUvYnucU=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YymKWJxXlfBVCm2CZr9KdCDJO9yEwSwjXgTJPVW7cXGNI9wMzQK FoFk8gN7CJCUz/W2z+ktop/UcU4NTz0aAdr9WVZpdL7cXC27/6GEIbsE03ut8j9NU6LJc06CSSV 1jjdmuqWAspozGLJCSDKPMAIaGpDsJWFFauc1Tg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGVEYnLtkNvMRVuj1mfLXg5jzgGQ2llhy2WEqGng0nVWNOVebKtAtGr+h9CXjMXbmdVeNxlj8TPltvvlk7GW0Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6358:2618:b0:17b:5c97:28e7 with SMTP id l24-20020a056358261800b0017b5c9728e7mr8650123rwc.5.1710611539055; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DU2PR02MB1016026565C00BFB81BB1367D882B2@DU2PR02MB10160.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <7CEA678E-9EEA-425E-B670-165582B4FD9A@gmail.com> <CABCOCHR1m1CDnEqjDhcgxnz433vs7SbQtjqG+KnkSwAuCJJE1w@mail.gmail.com> <DU2PR02MB10160B406F85CDE1669334FBD88282@DU2PR02MB10160.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <ZfRZ-acsHG7a_Kbf@alice.eecs.jacobs-university.de> <CABCOCHSmhVuW0WBt5xggCfcOOF3Vr-KDcbFo3W=9GwOzY5zYvQ@mail.gmail.com> <ZfR6e-KRQHrtFsLb@alice.eecs.jacobs-university.de> <CABCOCHSs_LshD4_XzE+YWjk3WK0zcwPbcwi2TF13c7iOZ7cTQQ@mail.gmail.com> <DU2PR02MB10160CDE65D7D74E2065D768A88282@DU2PR02MB10160.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <842D923E-746D-4AA1-94C6-E823E11E094E@chopps.org> <DM6PR11MB4708C14CEF4A1E56DF0CB8E2DB282@DM6PR11MB4708.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BFB35087-AC6D-4DFE-AC7C-005605478675@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <BFB35087-AC6D-4DFE-AC7C-005605478675@chopps.org>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:52:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHSi6js=i0jp9uP7XwQ5oFc4rhVuo5h85hyHe-OEWk+KdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Cc: "Per Andersson (perander)" <perander@cisco.com>, Jürgen Schönwälder <jschoenwaelder@constructor.university>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002277d50613cac908"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/_hnTOtoCusGsNhg9-s_L3LkHL9g>
Subject: Re: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:52:24 -0000

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

>
>
> > On Mar 15, 2024, at 19:13, Per Andersson (perander) <perander@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> on Friday, March 15, 2024 20:10:
> >>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 13:26, 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/
> >>> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email