Hi Benoit,
Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:
The "<CODE BEGINS>" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
[RFC7950].
While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:
The name of the file SHOULD be of the form:
module-or-submodule-name ['@' revision-date] ( '.yang' / '.yin' )
"module-or-submodule-name" is the name of the module or
submodule, and the optional "revision-date" is the latest
revision of the module or submodule, as defined by the
"revision" statement (Section 7.1.9).
While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the
revision statement is optional within the module? What is
the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
The RFC7950 text isn't clear.
My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file
name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision
statement appears within the module.
Kent // contributor
-----ORIGINAL MESSAGE-----
Dear all,
[Preparing the IETF hackathon]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis#section-4.2
What is the guideline regarding:
<CODE BEGINS> file "[email protected]"
versus
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo.yang"
Right now, we have a mix of behaviors.
This implies that the extracted YANG modules sometimes contains the
revision, but not always.
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
