Re: [Yot] questions concerning sid value assignments

[Michel Veillette <[e-mail]>]

About " When two YANG identifiers are different the SIDs should be different, I think."

[I-D.ietf-core-sid] map a SID to a fully qualified path.
The same leaf name or path defined in two different YANG modules will be map to two different SIDs.

For example:
       {
         "namespace": "data",
         "identifier": "/ietf-system:system-state/platform/os-name",
         "sid": 1726
       },

Regards,
Michel

-----Original Message-----
From: peter van der Stok [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 3:07 AM
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <[e-mail]>; Michel Veillette <[e-mail]>; Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: questions concerning sid value assignments

Hi Michael,

This is a serious issue; Thinking about is, I changed my mind several times.
I have cc'ed Kent, hoping he can provide some assistance.

Actually, there is a one to one relation between SID value and YANG identifier.
The YANG identifier includes the module name and prefix, as specified in the SID I-D (did not check).
When two YANG identifiers are different the SIDs should be different, I think.
Given that voucher and cwt-voucher have different module names, the YANG identifiers are different.
Conclusion, the SIDs should be different For example, the SID of expires-on in the cwt-voucher module is different from the SID of expires-on in the voucher module.

What do you think? It seems to hold more water than the semantics argument.

Peter

Michael Richardson schreef op 2018-02-13 20:50:
> peter van der Stok <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > There are two ways to go forward:
>     > 1) reuse as much as possible SID values generated for the voucher
>     > identifiers in "used" versions
> 
> Are we talking about the SID value for "expires-on" would be the same 
> between an ietf-cwt-voucher-request and ietf-cwt-voucher, because both 
> are derived from the same ietf-voucher document?
> 
> I want to say that I can live with it either way. I prefer it to be 
> the same, because it makes coding easier, but I can cope.
> 
>     > 2) assume that reusing is OK, but the voucher identifiers can be 
> assigned
>     > different SID values, because their semantics are different.
> 
> So that's the thing, it might be different in other situations, and 
> wouldn't want to screw things up down the road just to save a 
> definition in a
> file.   Maybe different semantics are in fact a "do not" though.
> 
>     > Do you have an idea about that. Possibly you can explain how you 
> think that
>     > the grouping should be used for different voucher versions and 
> if that
>     > applies to the cwt-voucher.
> 
>     > As far as I understand, the semantics of identifiers of the 
> cwt-voucher are
>     > identical to the ones of the original yang voucher specification. 
> In that
>     > case the SID values should be identical as well (seems to me)
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works  
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-