Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't understand why it matters where we publish the work, as long as we >> do. >> >>
> I don't understand where the SID files are for the modules in the initial
> registry (sec. 6.4.4).
> Is that for another WG to create the SID files and publish them in an RFC?
When I asked this question a few years ago, I was told that IANA would run
pyang --sid-generate-file on relevant YANG files already published on demand.
Ask for it, and it will be generated and stored.
This answer surprised me as I wasn't at all sure that IANA was ready for such
activity, nor did I think that we had enough assurance that there would be
someone to fix any bugs they ran into along the way. This is a topic I've
brought up a few times in the context of the YANG-CATALOG work and the Tools
team, but either nobody understands me, or everyone feels confident it is not
a problem they need to solve today.
>> > ## 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.
>>
> IMO this draft should include the normative SID files for the initial
> registry contents.
I don't object to that, but it was not in what I saw as the plans for the
document.
If you think that this is what we should do, then yeah, lets do it.
I'd like to hear from our AD to confirm this view so that nobody is surprised.
--
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
