Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 03 Feb 2016, at 14:37, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> 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.
I agree that not all modules must compile, e.g. we have things like:
module example-foo {
...
container bar { ... }
}
Having said that, in the upcoming version of 6020bis, I have changed
things like "module acme-system" to "module example-system".
/martin
>
> 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
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
