Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Lada,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
> > Hi Benoit,
> >
> > thank you for the review, please see my responses inline.
> >
> > Benoit Claise <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> >> o identity,
> >>
> >> There is no identity definition in the RFC 6020 terminology section.
> > Maybe it is an omission in 6020bis?
> Ok, let's fix it in 6020bis then.
Ok. First I wrote:
o identity: A globally unique, abstract, and untyped identity.
But this is kind of recursive...
o identity: A globally unique, abstract, and untyped label.
Any other proposal?
/martin
> >
> >> -
> >> module foomod {
> >>
> >> namespace"http://example.com/foomod";;
> >>
> >> prefix "foo";
> >>
> >> container top {
> >> leaf foo {
> >> type uint8;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> Use "example-" in the module name, as mentioned
> >> inhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05:
> >>
> >> Example modules are non-normative, and SHOULD be named with the
> >> prefix "example-".
> >>
> >> Same remark for module barmod (and btw, pay attention to the "import
> >> foomod") and module exmod
> > 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.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
