On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:35:36PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder, October 18, 2017 2:22 AM > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:06:44PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: > > > > > > Section 3.10: There should be a normative set of YANG validation tools > > > which > > are run on upload of an Internet draft. Errors and warnings found later > > (and > > perhaps through tools a user doesn't have) should not result in a module > > being > > given an error designation. > > > > > > > I disagree. An error is an error regardless when or how it was detected. > > What I am trying to avoid is YANG errors being discovered via validation > tools for which the model author has no access to before a submitted draft is > accepted. However this can be accomplished is fine with me. >
I think this generally can't be avoided but then this should also not be a common problem as things are getting more stable. > One solution is to ensure the RFC upload process has access to all tools > currently used for model validation. This is a reasonable request to make for the tool makers. Having a notion of normative YANG validation tools (with specific versions - this will come next) is, however, an idea that should be avoided. /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
