On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:45:36AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > I think some people will be confused by example YANG that is treated > exactly > > the same as a normative module except the module name starts with > "example". > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-22#appendix-C > > > > This example is a good example why requiring --ietf is likely not > desirable. The example module lacks meta information but this is just > fine I think for the example. > > People who do cut'n'paste blindly will do so regardless how we mark up > things. We can't fix that problem. > > My point of showing "example-rip" is that there is absolutely no indication that the extracted module is just an example and not actually supposed to be implemented. The module looks plenty real to most of us. Why does anyone want all the examples extracted exactly? I completely understand why we want the normative modules that are supposed to be implemented, but not so sure why <CODE BEGINS> <CODE ENDS> around an example is supposed to be useful. I suppose then every type of complete example needs <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> right? Is there something special about a YANG module vs. ABNF or SMIv2? Why haven't we been doing this for years with these code components? > /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
