Subject: [core] SID open comments/discussions before WGLC2

From: Ivaylo Petrov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:26:29 +0200

Dear all,

I apologize for the delay due to unforeseen personal and work-related extra
load.

My understanding is that with the latest revision -13, we have addressed
all pending comments (most notably the early allocation one). The only
items that were mentioned and not yet in the draft are:
- SID renaming to YSID suggested here [1]. I have discussed with some of
the other authors and we believe that could have an important negative
effect on existing code, plugins and changing the name now might bring
confusion in the community. We would like to have a better sense of
people's opinion on that.
- SID registries group name (there is a separate discussion [2]). I believe
it should not prevent WGLC2, but I might be wrong.
- Moving some content type into yang-cbor and sid drafts
  Problem statement: if anyone would want to use CBOR + SID representation
or CBOR + Names representation of YANG data, they need to have normative
reference to the CoMI document, which might appear unexpected.
  Proposed solution: as discussed [3] we can either move the media type and
content format registrations in the yang-cbor draft, but then it will have
a normative reference to the SID draft that we really wanted to avoid, or
we register CBOR + names in the yang-cbor and we register CBOR + SID in the
SID draft, but then we have normative reference in the opposite direction -
SID to yang-cbor. It appeared that people were more in favor of the latter
approach, so the changes that I thought this would need could be found at
[4]. I am not perfectly happy with this, so I would like to know the WG
opinion on how important this problem is to be resolved and whether we go
with the first option or the second one.

Best regards,
Ivaylo

[1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/OHkeVWB-q1Hd-52JGvWg9EfG3J0/
[2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/qE773yHGaxEskizf0rpbzMo7D78/
[3]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/SiMRauO85o_0kyIvXExuslvnJ5Q/
[4]:
https://github.com/core-wg/yang-cbor/compare/content-format-moving?expand=1
  and
https://github.com/core-wg/comi/compare/content-format-moving?expand=1

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 20:18:45 -0400

{Thanks for the update.  While many people seem to have gotten COVacations,
it seems that those of us who already worked remotely, just got more work :-}

    > people's opinion on that.

I think that everyone with a stake in the ground is in this WG, so I don't
think it's an issue.

I am not super enthusiastic about YSID as a name/TLA, but maybe it will grow on me.
(I try to pronounce it, and I come up with "Why-Sid", which becomes "wisest"
and then reminds me of "Weizmann", as in "Weizmann Institute of Science"  for
some reason.)
BUT, I can live with YSID as a name, and I think it's less confusing then SID.

    > with the first option or the second one.

Yes, I agree that neither situation is ideal, and what you describe in [4]
seems find.  I agree that a reference to COMI would be surprising.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Ivaylo Petrov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:28:39 +0200

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your feedback! During the CORE interim today we briefly
discussed the SID naming issue and what Carsten suggested was to officially
use the name YANG SID (or YSID), but in case there will be no confusion, to
abbreviate this to just SID. That way people looking for YANG SIDs will
always find the relevant documents, but we will not need to do too big of a
rework of the drafts and tools minimizing the risk of mistakes. How does
that sound to you?
Best regards,
Ivaylo

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:25:59 -0400

> rework of the drafts and tools minimizing the risk of mistakes. How does

I can live with it, but I'm not crazy for this.