Hi - >From: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> >Sent: Nov 9, 2015 10:27 AM >To: [email protected] >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [netmod] yang 1.1 last call comment resolution ... >> > - Old function: unique module names >> > >> > I think the resolution is to adopt the compromise solution. >> > >> >> which was what? > >The (revised) proposal is: > > The names of all standard modules and submodules MUST be unique. > Developers of enterprise modules are RECOMMENDED to choose names for > their modules that will have a low probability of colliding with > standard or other enterprise modules, e.g., by using the enterprise > or organization name as a prefix for the module name. Witin a > server, all module names MUST be unique.
This doesn't make sense from the perspective of the RFC 2119 guidelines. The choice between MUST and RECOMMENDED is effectively governed by the question "would failure to comply with this constraint prevent successful interoperation". It's *not* a question of whether the modules are "standard" (does that include non-IETF efforts?) or "enterprise". Either they're both "MUST" or they're both "SHOULD/RECOMMENDED". Randy _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
