Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> writes: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I updated the YANG guidelines draft. > > I have a couple of comments. > > -------------------------- > > Section 5.14 says: > > The "choice" statement is allowed to be directly present within a > "case" statement in YANG 1.1. > > It is allowed in YANG 1 as well. > > This needs to be considered > carefully. Consider simply including the nested "choice" as > additional "case" statements within the parent "choice" statement. > > Ok, but I don't think people use nested choice by accident. I have > seen it used a handful of times, and there was always a good reason > for doing it. If you think some warning text like this is needed, I
But isn't it that in these legitimate cases the inner choice is always accompanied by other nodes within the same case? The solution to Y29 enables choice as a short-hand case, and this can always be flattened. Do I miss something? Lada > suggest something along the lines of: > > If a "case" statement contains a single "choice" statement, > consider simply including ... > > -------------------------- > > Section 5.1 says: > > Normative modules contained in Standards Track documents > MUST be named according to the guidelines in the IANA > Considerations section of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]. > > > Note that since 6020bis doesn't obsolete 6020, the IANA Considerations > text is not copied to 6020bis. So either reference 6020, or copy the > rule (use "ietf-" prefix). > > > > > /martin > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
