Re: [Yot] contents of SID registration authority

[peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Concerning:
Would you please propose a clarification text to clarify this policy.

My pleasure beginning next week; will also prepare some voucher examples

cheerio,

peter

Michel Veillette schreef op 2018-02-15 16:03:
> Hi Peter
> 
> Yes, the recommendation is to perform the provisional SID allocation
> at or just after working group adoption.
> Would you please propose a clarification text to clarify this policy.
> 
> Regards,
> Michel
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter van der Stok [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 3:29 AM
> To: Michel Veillette <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Michael Richardson
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: contents of SID registration authority
> 
> Thanks Michel,
> 
> Do I understand correctly, that for yang modules which are planned to
> be part of a future RFC, the authors are encouraged to do a allocation
> from the ietf range which becomes finalized after RFC publication.
> 
> two remarks:
> If my interpretation is correct, the text needs some clarification.
> Secondly, how to make a difference between provisional and final?
> 
> Slowly, the feeling creeps on me that we need a IANA validation
> somewhere on the route.
> 
> Many thanks for all your explanations. Going through the SID
> allocation process is really educational.
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> peter
> 
> Michel Veillette schreef op 2018-02-14 21:07:
>> Hi Peter
>> 
>> === About "remove ietf-restconf@2016-08-15 because there is already an
>> ietf-restconf@2017-01-26 owned by ietf"
>> 
>> ietf-restconf is imported by other YANG modules.
>> To automatically resolve these imports, it is more convenient to keep
>> this module in the SID registry.
>> Furthermore, the SID assigned to the ietf-restconf module can be used
>> in the yang library
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-veillette-core-yang-library/)
>> The new version of ietf-restconf should be added however.
>> 
>> === About " What is the policy for drafts that become rfcs? will they
>> be entered automatically?
>> The latter will mean that the originally attributed SIDs are replaced
>> with the values from the ietf range?"
>> 
>> The second bullet in
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-sid-03#section-6.1.1
>> address this topic.
>> In summary, we allows final SIDs allocation after working group
>> adoption.
>> In this case, the transition to RFC have no impacts.
>> 
>>    o  The range of 1000 to 59,999 is reserved for YANG modules defined
>>       in RFCs.  The IANA policy for future additions to this sub-
>>       registry is "RFC required" [RFC5226].  Allocation within this
>>       range requires publishing of the associated ".yang" and ".sid"
>>       files in the YANG module registry.  The allocation within this
>>       range is done prior to the RFC publication but should not be 
>> done
>>       prior to the working group adoption.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Michel
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: peter van der Stok [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:20 AM
>> To: Michel Veillette <[e-mail]>; Michael
>> Richardson <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: contents of SID registration authority
>> 
>> Hi Michel and Michael,
>> 
>> I looked at the contents of SID registration authority.
>> 
>> I have the following suggestions for mcr314 entries:
>> - Replace ietf-voucher@2017-10-25 by ietf-voucher@2018-01-24; better
>> would be to have an ietf version which is updated with the latest
>> version.
>> - remove ietf-restconf@2016-08-15 because there is already an
>> ietf-restconf@2017-01-26 owned by ietf
>> 
>> What is the policy for drafts that become rfcs?; will they be entered
>> automatically?
>> The latter will mean that the originally attributed SIDs are replaced
>> with the values from the ietf range?
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> --
>> Peter van der Stok
>> vanderstok consultancy
>> mailto: [e-mail]
>> www: www.vanderstok.org
>> tel NL: [phone]     F: [phone]