Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not have time to do another full review of this draft. > These are high-level comments.
> ## document scope is too large
> The draft should be split into 2 or 3 drafts.
> 1) SID File Definition
> 2a) SID Management Procedures
> 2b) Initial SID File Definitions
It sounds like a good idea in principal, and if it were 2018, I'd say, sure.
But I'm not really sure we are going make anything easier by splitting things
up now.
> ## document scope is not CORE-specific
> Several WGs and SDOs want to use SID files.
> The 13 modules listed in sec 6.4.4 are a small fraction of the IETF YANG
> modules
> that should have SID files.
I don't understand why it matters where we publish the work, as long as we do.
> ## SID files are normative
> - The algorithm is not stable enough yet (both specification and
> implementation).
> - Manual editing is allowed.
> - There is no indication in the SID file that it is automatically
generated
> or manually edited.
> - Only the authoritative SID file can be trusted to have the correct
> assignments
These seem like reasonable complaints, but I'm not sure we can get past this
until we publish a documents. It's a *PROPOSED STANDARD*
> ## Initial SID files are missing
> The normative SID files for all YANG modules listed in sec 6.4.4 are
> missing.
> The assignment range is insufficient for interoperability.
I hadn't imagined that we'd have to do all that work before publishing, but
rather that we couldn't do any of that work until we published.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
