On 07/07/2016 20:21, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:53:48AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:22:43AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > >
> > > The draft already distinguishes between these 3 cases
> > >
> >
> > Good. Then I am happy.
> >
> > > > b) example modules that
> > > > - usually have a module name starting with ietf-
> > > > - must be marked with <CODE BEGINS> <CODE ENDS>
> > > > - may be validated without using strict -ietf checks
> > > > - may lead to warnings during idnits processing
> > >
> > > The problem with (b) is that the copyright for IETF Trust
applies.
> > > CODE BEGINS should be for normative modules.
> > > I don't think the example-jukebox module loses its value because
> > > there is no fake "contact" info in the module.
> > >
> > > Examples MAY pass "pyang --ietf" checking but this is not
required
> > >
> >
> > Who made <CODE BEGINS> <CODE ENDS> imply copyright? This should be
> > fixed. The copyright is usually stated in the module's description
> > statement - and this is where it should be stated. The <CODE
BEGINS>
> > <CODE ENDS> mechanism was designed as a markup for tools to allow
> > automated extraction - no more and no less. Can we please avoid
> > overloading this with additional semantics?
> >
> >
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/copyright.html
>
>
> Note para 4
>
>
> In addition to the code component types listed, *any text found
between the
> markers <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> shall be considered a code
component.*
> Authors may wish to use these markers as clear delimiters of code
> components.
>
>
Well, I am not sure what this really means; if I have an example
module and I do not put it in <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS>, it
might still be a Code Component, no?
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/Code-Components-List-4-23-09.txt
If so, then the question whether some YANG module is wrapped in <CODE
BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> does not matter.
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.
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?
Surely it would always get warnings from --ietf, just from its module
name not starting "ietf-".
Perhaps pyang could be extended to support an --ietf-example option for
any modules extracted from RFCs with a module name that begins
"example-...". This could then use a subset of the --ietf rules that
make sense for example modules. This would presumable allow the <CODE
BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> markers to be used for example modules.
Rob
/js
Andy
--
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
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
