On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. > > I do not agree that an example of any kind is a code component in a standard. It is irrelevant that the example has the structure of a YANG module. What if I want to show an example of an incorrect YANG module? I guess that would become impossible if every example ever created in an RFC MUST be extracted and compile without errors or even warnings. > Rob > > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
