> On 03 Feb 2016, at 14:37, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
I guess Martin as well, given that 6020bis doesn't follow that rule.
Lada
>> 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
>
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
