On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:21:03PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > The difference is that ietf-restconf-monitoring is NORMATIVE and REQUIRED > for standards compliance. The example-jukebox module is not in any way > part of the compliance requirements for RESTCONF. A code component > that is part of the standard needs CODE BEGINS. IMO it confuses > the reader to use if for examples. Sometimes (like in routing modules) it > is not obvious > that the examples are non-normative. >
You are adding semantics to what the CODE BEGIN / END means. I prefer to consider this mechanism just a convenience markup so that code can be easily extracted from RFCs. For me, any attempt to add additional semantics is getting us into trouble. If example-* modules are expected to be validated, it may be good to mark them such that they can be easily extracted. This is, as far as I recall, what CODE BEGIN / END has been originally designed for. > Another issue Benoit raised is why doesn't the example-jukebox module pass > all the pyang --ietf strict checks. Do we expect examples to pass --ietf or > not? I would have to look into the details what --ietf actually does to have an informed opinion. /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
