On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:09 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:55:44AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 7:40 AM joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This is start of a two week poll on making > > > draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a NetMod working group > > > document. > > > > > > > > > I think we did this step already. > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20344.html > > > > Otherwise how would the draft be named draft-ietf-netmod? > > Maybe you mean to start a WGLC, which I also support. > > > > While we figure out what the action is, here are a few quick review > comments: > .... > - Standard tags defined in description statements > > I do not like this. YANG has extension statements and having to > parse stuff out of free text description statements seems to be a > movement backwards. > It is even worse than a step backwards. The draft specifies a lot of details about module tag conformance that needs to be present in the description-stmt. The idea that tools must screen-scrape description statements goes against everything YANG-based management is all about. YANG has extension statements, so we don't need to put complex syntax into comments and descriptions. IMO all text about module tag conformance and defining tags in description-stmts should be removed. There is no explanation why a standard YANG module would define multiple module-tags for the same module in the first place, let alone why each different tag would have different conformance requirements. > ..... > > /js > Andy > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
