Subject: [core] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-sid-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 02:29:04 -0700

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-sid-16: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-sid/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This should be very easy to resolve and I want to make sure that we understand
the situation here better -

*Section 3 : says -

    "The creation of this new version of the ".sid" file
   SHOULD be performed using an automated tool"

  If this is supposed to be the automation process written in appendix B then
  putting a reference here makes sense. If not, then as this is very important
  tool, more information need to be added here in this specification (like,
  where to find it, who create and maintains it, any reference to such an
  existing tools). Also I am missing what consequences one need to consider if
  the process is not automated. If this is same as written in the introduction -

   "Assignment of SIDs to YANG items can be automated.  For more details
   how this can be achieved, please consult Appendix B."

  Then we have two kind of instructions for the same thing - "can be" and a
  normative "SHOULD". Hence it need to be clarified which one should prevail.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the efforts in this document.

* I support Robert Wilton's Discuss and Benjamin Kaduk's discuss no.2

One more clarification comment -

* Section 7.5.2: says -

    "  The
   maximum SID range size is 1000.  A larger size may be requested by
   the authors if this recommendation is considered insufficient.  It is
   important to note that an additional SID range can be allocated to an
   existing YANG module if the initial range is exhausted."

  I have hard time understanding the mentioning of the maximum SID range here.
  does this mean this document sets the maximum range to 1000 but others can
  have more? please clarify.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:52:06 -0400

> the process is not automated. If this is same as written in the

it's in pyang 2.1 since late 2019.
I don't know what the current practice towards referencing pyang.

    > normative "SHOULD". Hence it need to be clarified which one should prevail.

Good point.

    > have more? please clarify.

Each of my ANIMA modules uses around 15 SID values from a range of 50.
(that's draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher, which is among the first users)

I think that if you write a module that requires more than 1000 SID values
that you might be doing something wrong, and so more consultation is
warranted.

Otherwise, small ranges should be given away like the candy on the IANA desk.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:05:43 +0000

On 2021-07-15, 23:52, "Michael Richardson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

I think a short description of the tool  (may be should go in as an appendix in the doc ) and a url reference to pyang2.1 will do the job here.

    Good point.

Well I don't get the warranted in the document as clear as you wrote here.  Would be good to make it clear in the document.

BR

Zahed