The authors discussed this, and we will close this issue
(https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues/14 - title: Does the
NMDA architecture need to use RFC 2119 language?) by adding RFC 2119
text to the document, which will probably be best illustrated with an
updated draft revision.
For the record, the majority of the authors had the view that RFC 2119
language does not particularly aid readability in this architecture
document.
Thanks,
Rob
On 16/09/2017 10:56, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de
<mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to
RFC 7950.
> I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a
standards
> track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative
text,
> especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior.
>
RFC 8174:
o These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not
required. Specifically, normative text does not require the use
of these key words. They are used for clarity and consistency
when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text does not
use them and is still normative.
So what?
Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms.
This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case.
Either way, the new YANG rules seem half-baked and not ready
for standardization.
/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/
<http://www.jacobs-university.de/>>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
