Hi,
I entered a new 6087bis issue:
https://github.com/netmod-wg/rfc6087bis/issues/27
I agree the conventions need to be spelled out.
IMO there are many problematic examples in 6020bis.
The convention "..." is used and some newbie could think
it was some valid YANG syntax. There are also example
modules that use prefixes although no prefix-stmt or import-stmt
is shown to match up the prefix.
This is a bigger problem than automated tools extracting modules.
People learn from examples (more than we would like) so it needs
to be clear in every YANG draft whether a YANG example
is complete vs. trimmed for readability and not meant to be compiled.
Let's not use 'example' as a hack to indicate 1 or the other.
Compiler writers want deterministic syntax, not ad-hoc conventions.
There are 3 scenarios:
1) normative: has <CODE BEGINS> and complete YANG module
2) example: no <CODE BEGINS> but complete YANG module,
intended to be compiled
3) snippet: no <CODE BEGINS> and not complete, not intended to be compiled
So we cannot tell the difference between (2) and (3).
IMO we should have <EXAMPLE BEGINS> for (2) so it can be
extracted automatically and distinguished from (3).
Andy
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]
> wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:49 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:19:33AM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
> 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 still believe the text in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05 needs
> fixing to distinguish between examples that should be subject to
> validation and examples that are just there for documentation purposes
> and which are typically designed to be incomplete in order to aid the
> reader.
>
>
> I agree. Currently there is no way to distinguish between models that are
> examples, meant to be extracted and validated, and what I call snippets of
> an example that are designed to incomplete and for demonstrating a point.
>
> Should there be a stipulation in 6087bis that incomplete examples should
> NOT use the prefix example-?
>
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
