IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] [core] abbreviation SID

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Fri, 17 April 2020 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E523A0D7E; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Hbvw0nYtObNd; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAB9D3A0D7C; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFB1F4074E; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED9BF40737 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wvJHKvT9o8cK for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com (mail-yb1-xb30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC76AF40729 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id o70so59258ybg.10 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=k6gbrlc7QA+rPb17khi5TUfZEpdPED4SY/9sJ9hb6wY=; b=mH+eofxXNhllmX31ZSUDZFSxArw7ucGkzd2KgE8yjZ+PeHmLhu71IpihEb2L64hX23 fo80e1TFRMfrpgWjAgfhxTAt+8SmnXfpDwa18PkgtLoV6xiAB1Pq/6giNBRthvnbX8kd IuKkVlOAIclrmA15gx3i36PEkUHADhY/16WGKqqJorlgEjB13s8ttlMz9H2nGQZTVbH6 xlqGOliQdWNBskKfCnczBdXg3QwNKFG8x11JdR3P2hftL1oFf49gq/h8ltoWKnKZZltb voOekL/But0eljyDUBru03YaHOSpJ6u9UxbIdMvf6AaqEA+sCqT1isazGQJ7HovIN/KF pR/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k6gbrlc7QA+rPb17khi5TUfZEpdPED4SY/9sJ9hb6wY=; b=dc7H0NU3J+CrBcLuUp3yYNbz9bQNyZCa63zW3inlVf+vIW3AHTD4I+HxrAzCTFNP1U WGo0wv4OQw2xcOTxsoetshV9Ap9yc8KSOixKp+IhQvKMNlaRATxbpJriMJdwGGo8/9fZ SLQkswFuPnj+Z8w05vxMFO36yOclTrfGYtjQECL5R5OT2iGOpgjHG5FA478x3BqdRQxr VKC0fnLIjE0o30Hp3FZ4TAW/v7uQkNJJc3U7duLJaT+SBVTPPu3TAwKnq3Mds5rL20g2 CPOkIeU7qV6AQAQHHmVYsOGuS0CzinUjI4/5h6Gpv/FfH4VyEg7/3q8rUcGSs6h6E8dF xcpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYStlTyHduTNsPNww3VnNPp8phpXqyUGuIKZWw46FlkPBO/cNHW dfzjQcUL3GHLH9AhkRAVXg/vTXE4PUacTyYzSmGF7w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJvQHNX8uTt1W0zkPAdzNGBRMQUA7IWRInq+n83rerjOynDGY8jBdTcF2J4NLY0xoSwhZfBySEM17Wimvi/36c=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7c2:: with SMTP id 185mr1282845ybh.44.1587079552780; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1UW7eW8VIi.1FNLrngyUqY@pc8xp> <11891.1587078130@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <11891.1587078130@localhost>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:25:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTu8NVmsENrzrVck+vFF1voeUrgJ7SG798z0Ve0OAwX1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:12:52 -0700
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [core] abbreviation SID
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, Core <core@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1271210172209748758=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi,

I do not think three can be much expectation of uniqueness for an acronym
like SID.
Also doubt its use in YANG could be confused with Segment Routing. But...
How about a full name "YANG SID" and OK to use a short name "SID" when the
context is clear.


Andy

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 4:02 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:
>     > SID already has many meanings of which Segment Routing Identifier is
>     > probably the most widely used.
>
> okay, but this is also a new meaning to our industry with SR.
>
>     > SID is now going to mean Schema IDentifier in the context of YANG and
>     > OAM in general as defined by draft-core-sid which will doubtless be
> on
>     > its way to the RFC Editor before too long.
>
> CORE/YANG/CBOR could change the abreviation used.
> It's in WGLC now, or maybe it's just passed.
>
> * SchemaID.
> * SchemaKey, or SK or SCK
> * CSID, CSI, CSiD
> * YSID, YSI
> * YangID, YID
>
>
> tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:
>     > I believe that an update is needed to the list of well known
> abbreviations,
>
>     > SID already has many meanings of which Segment Routing Identifier is
> probably the most widely used.
>
>     > SID is now going to mean Schema IDentifier in the context of YANG
> and OAM in general as defined by draft-core-sid which will doubtless be on
> its way to the RFC Editor before too long.
>
>     > So I think that the different possibilities for SID need updating
> sooner rather than later.
>
>     > Doubtless this will be a source of confusion for years to come but
> it might be possible to diminish that a little.
>
>     > ---
>     > New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
>     > https://www.oeclassic.com/
>
>
>     > Tom Petch
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > rfc-interest mailing list
>     > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email