Hi Lada,
I agree with Juergen that 6087bis should distinguish between complete
example modules and short module snippets that are used for explaining a
certain YANG language or encoding issue. If you look at this particular
example, then changing the JSON document on p. 6 to
{
"example-foomod:top": {
"foo": 54,
"example-barmod:bar": true
}
}
would IMO just add noise and blur the message the example is supposed to
convey.
So please fix the text in 6087bis.
Until it's done, I'll stick to the current rule.
I don't want to be excessively bureaucratic but, strictly speaking, current
rules are those of RFC 6087 that contains no such requirement, so we should be
OK for now. And I think there is enough consensus
so Jürgen and you?
to change the corresponding 6087bis text - after all, 6020bis also has example modules
whose names don't start with "example-".
I'll still have to review it and that will be one of my comments, for
sure. Consistency first.
Regards ,Benoit
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
