On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:15:26AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > 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. > > Well, its called example-rip. If people go and implement without ever > looking at the name etc., well, they get what they deserve to get - an > example implemented. > > > 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 thought automated checking of examples was the reason. Or are you > saying tools are just fine with extracting YANG anyway, regardless of > the convention? If so, we should discuss to get rid of it in general. > > idnits and rfcstrip have no problem finding and extracting anything that looks like a YANG module. $ rfcstrip draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-15.txt example-ops.yang: 37 lines. example-actions.yang: 44 lines. example-jukebox.yang: 5 lines. example-mod.yang: 13 lines. [email protected]: 282 lines. [email protected]: 152 lines. example-jukebox.yang: 246 lines. example-interface.yang: 20 lines. IMO adding CODE BEGINS around every little example (eg example-mod.yang) is not needed, but if the WG wants it this way, then fine. The rfcstrip can do a stupid-grep for "module " same as it can for <CODE BEGINS>. We should optimize for readers not tool writers. Andy > > I suppose then every type of complete example needs > > <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> right? > > No, only those examples that are complete enough that it makes sense > to check them. > > > 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? > > I do not recall many SMIv2 example modules. The reason I think is that > we moved towards having more core YANG modules that assume to be > extended and this is where more substantial examples come into play. > > Regarding ABNF, I never understood why ABNF definitions are often > difficult to extract. RFC 6020 and RFC 6020bis have the ABNF wrapped > in <CODE BEGINS> <CODE ENDS>, which I think is a good way of doing it. > > /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
