In this thread it was mentioned that the id optional parameter of ManageNeuron should be discarded as it was the legacy way of specifying the id of the neuron submitting the command.
Given that it’s what I’m using in proposals.network, I just wanted to start a thread to ask if “discarded” in this context means “deprecated and someday it won’t work anymore, pay attention” or “deprecated, but it’s totally fine if you are using it, and it will continue to work, no worries”?
Just replying as I’d like to know the answer to this too!
I use manage neuron in a number of places. Why is it going away?
It’s not. This thread is about the ‘ID’ optional parameter of the ManageNeuron command.
For what it’s worth, I use ManageNeuron (through ic-repl) as well for Synapse, CodeGov, and my proposals neuron.
So is this just saying that you’re going to need a reference by sub account? Or nonce?
There is a lot more detail in the original thread referenced in the OP. I think someone from DFINITY needs to answer, but when I read the thread I didn’t have the impression that the ManageNeuron command is being deprecated.
The question is strictly, solely and only about the parameter id.
As a member of the NNS team, I think what @Andre-Popovitch meant is simply that the caller need not populate the id field. I am pretty sure he did not mean that NNS governance will stop supporting the id field. I believe he simply meant that the neuron_id_or_subaccount field is considered more “stylish” than the id field.
FWIW, I am not aware of any desire/intention/plan to stop supporting the id field. If I’m right, then there is no need to migrate.
Having said this, I don’t want to put words in his mouth. I just wanted to give y’all a sooner reply (it will be a few more hours before he wakes up today). Hopefully, he will simply confirm what I’ve said above 
Sorry for the confusion everyone!
In response to @skilesare: the manage_neuron endpoint is not going anywhere and is not deprecated in any way.
in response to @peterparker / @dfxjesse / @wpb: My intent was “legacy, but it’s totally fine if you are using it, and it will continue to work, no worries”. It is simply that the neuron_id_or_subaccount field can do anything the id field can do, but the inverse is not true. Therefore if you populate the other two fields, there is never any need to populate id. When writing my previous post I was worried that the user I was replying to would be confused about the apparent duplication in functionality, so I was trying to prevent that by preemptively recommending that they ignore id. We certainly have no plans to break backwards compatibility by removing the id field or anything like that.
Sorry again for the confusion!
Thanks a lot for the feedback!