Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Lada, > > Thanks for the quick reply. > > Hi Benoit, > > > > thank you for the review, please see my responses inline. > > > > Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> 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 > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod