Hi,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > > I think this discussion has come to a head. Please submit an updated > 6087bis as soon as you can. Some comments: > > > > > > 1) on the 3rd line below, should the text clarify that --ietf is only > for IETF modules? Also, how does the MUST here jive with the SHOULD in > Section 4.10? > > > > - MUST use CODE BEGINS for a real module > > - MUST NOT use CODE BEGINS for an example module > > - MUST pass pyang --ietf for a real module > > - MUST pass pyang for example module > > > > > > 2) related to #1, Section 5 says "In general, modules in IETF Standards > Track specifications MUST comply with all syntactic and semantic > requirements of YANG [RFC7950]." > > > > First, what does "In general...MUST" mean? - maybe the > > sentence should start with "Modules in IETF..."? > > > > Second, can we add a statement for non-IETF SDOs that might > > have other conventions/restrictions? Would we recommend > > --strict for starters, until they can add an SDO-specific > > flag (e.g., --<sdo>) to pyang? > > We wouldn't talk about any specific tool; we'd just talk about > compliance with this document. Other SDOs will have to decide on > their own rules, but we can suggest that they use all our rules except > the naming convention for modules and namespaces. > > > I would like the --ietf parameter to be renamed --normative so it is not IETF-specific and it is clear IETF example modules should not use it. Probably too late for that. Agree wrt/ naming conventions. e.g., openconfig uses ALL_CAPS for identityrefs and IETF does not. Andy > > 3) The first paragraph in Section 4.6 isn't clear, how about this? > > > > OLD > > This section contains the module(s) defined by the specification. > > These modules SHOULD be written using the YANG syntax defined in > > [RFC7950]. YANG 1.0 [RFC6020] MAY be used if no YANG 1.1 constructs > > or semantics are needed in the module. > > > > NEW > > This section contains the module(s) defined by the YANG specification. > > These modules SHOULD be written using the YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] syntax; > > YANG 1.0 [RFC6020] syntax MAY be used if no YANG 1.1 constructs > > or semantics are needed in the module. > > > > Note: this reads better, but I wonder, since YANG 1.0 syntax is a > > subset of YANG 1.1 syntax, what is really being said here? - that > > yang-version statement is optional? Or maybe, instead of focusing > > on syntax, the statement should regard the version of YANG used? > > The point is that yang-version 1.1 SHOULD be used, and yang-version 1 > MAY be used. > > > 4) Lastly, picking up on this discussion: > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg17277.html. > > > > can add an Informational reference to RFC 4151 in Section 5.9? > > Maybe something like this: > > > > OLD > > > > The following examples are for non-Standards-Track modules. The > > domain "example.com" SHOULD be used in all namespace URIs for example > > modules. > > > > http://example.com/ns/example-interfaces > > > > http://example.com/ns/example-system > > > > NEW > > > > The following URIs exemplify what might be used by non Standards > > Track modules. Note that the domain "example.com" SHOULD be used > > by example modules in IETF drafts. > > > > Example URIs using URLs per RFC 3986 [RFC3986]: > > > > http://example.com/ns/example-interfaces > > http://example.com/ns/example-system > > > > Example URIs using tags per RFC 4151 [RFC4151]: > > > > tag:example.com,2017:example-interfaces > > tag:example.com,2017:example-system > > I would like to see urn:example:<module-name>, that's what I usually > use here. > > > /martin >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
