On 08/07/2016 09:26, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
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.
I agree with both Juergen's points.
I would suggesting using CODE BEGIN/END to mark code, and use the module
name to denote whether or not it is an example. My understanding is
that all modules in IETF drafts must either be prefixed as "ietf-" or
"example-". It would be pretty easy for an RFC extraction tool to have
a option to control whether to extract all code, just proper modules, or
just examples.
Rob
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
