OK. I think it would be helpful to the reader to say that explicitly.

-ekr


On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> I don't want to overrotate on period, as I was just using it as an
>> example.
>>
>> As I said, there are a pile of other characters that are not in either
>> set. Are
>> they allowed or not?
>>
>>
> That is the only other character allowed in YANG not mentioned in this
> section.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-6.2
>
>
> -Ekr
>>
>>
> Andy
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: No Objection
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/stat
>>>>>> ement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis.txt:500
>>>>>>    normative, if the module itself is considered normative, and not an
>>>>>>    example module or example YANG fragment.  The use of keywords
>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>    in [RFC2119] apply to YANG description statements in normative
>>>>>> I think you probably want to rewrite this as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Note that if the module itself is considered normative and not an
>>>>>> example
>>>>>> module or example YANG fragment, then all YANG statements..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>    o  Prefixes are never allowed for built in data types and YANG
>>>>>>       keywords.
>>>>>> I'm not sure I understand what this means. Is the idea that I can't
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> "example-import" somewhere?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The external keyword "example:import" is not the same as the YANG
>>>>> keyword "import"
>>>>> YANG keywords are not allowed to have prefixes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>    character MAY be used if the identifier represents a well-known
>>>>>> value
>>>>>>    that uses these characters.
>>>>>> Is this text saying that only characters in these two subsets are
>>>>>> allowed and
>>>>>> therefore, for instance "." is forbidden
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This text is suggesting the characters that SHOULD be used.
>>>>> The dot and dash chars are not included. The text specifies which
>>>>> characters are included.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, I am still confused. Here's the original text:
>>>>
>>>>    Identifiers SHOULD follow a consistent naming pattern throughout the
>>>>    module.  Only lower-case letters, numbers, and dashes SHOULD be used
>>>>    in identifier names.  Upper-case characters and the underscore
>>>>    character MAY be used if the identifier represents a well-known value
>>>>    that uses these characters.
>>>>
>>>> There are other characters that are not in either of these sets. Are
>>>> you saying
>>>> that they can't be used under any conditions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I will add the period charater to the list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Ekr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    It is RECOMMENDED that only valid YANG modules be included in
>>>>>>    documents, whether or not they are published yet.  This allows:
>>>>>> For clarify, I assume you mean "the modules are published yet"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>    The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM)
>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis]
>>>>>>    does not support parameter access control for RPC operations.  The
>>>>>>    user is given permission (or not) to invoke the RPC operation with
>>>>>> This might be slightly clearer if you said "parameter-based access
>>>>>> control"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to