Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 24/03/2017 08:09, Benoit Claise wrote: > > On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > >> 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. > > That makes sense. > > Any other views? > > I don't feel strongly, but would it make more sense if instead > rfc6187bis stated that the file name SHOULD include the revision date? > I.e. 7950 states what the filename is allowed to look like and 6187bis > states what they should look like for IETF produced models.
+1 /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
