On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2018, at 22:25, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > SHOULD ietf-core-sid say something about this? > > Yes, we should have a common way of handling SID allocations in RFCs. > > draft-ietf-core-sid sounds like a natural way to place this, but what goes > into what document is often a question of who has time to write something > at a particular point in time. So let’s discuss this with the authors. > > In any case, this probably should stay at the level of a suggestion more > than prescribing a normative way of doing things — the conventions we use > for this may evolve faster than the rest of the technical content of > draft-ietf-core-sid. > > You probably want to make a clear distinction between Internet Drafts with volatile SID assignments and RFCs with permanent SID assignments. Do you want early implementation (of modules using SID) to be as painful as possible or as seamless as possible? Renumbering SID assignments may be extremely disruptive to actual deployments. Correctness of a SID file within a source document is not the same thing as correctness of all SID files across an entire administrative domain. I agree the administration of SID assignments is out of scope for CORE WG but punting the problem to vendors or operators will not be good enough. Grüße, Carsten > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > core mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core >
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
