Andy Bierman <[email protected]> writes:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:31:43AM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:30 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[email protected]> wrote:
> > - 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.
>
> This is used by the human implementer of the module (i.e., they need to
write code to implement the module). As such it was not intended for
machine parsing.
>
I am personally not convinced. The whole reason why we have YANG is
automation and I believe people will go and write tools to extract
tags and having to extract them out of free form text looks like a
step backwards.
It is more than a step backwards.
There is an unexplained procedure for declaring the module-tag conformance,
in addition to the module-tag mappings.
All YANG designers are supposed to learn the exact text to write (not
free-form at all)
and this draft updates 6087bis with procedures for declaring the module-tags
in the description-stmt.
Also, tool developers are supposed to parse the description-stmt looking
for the
module-tag definitions. But instead, tool developers are going to say "Use
our
proprietary YANG extension because we are never going to parse description
statements"
I've added the extension statement.
> > - System management
> >
> > What is 'system management' and a 'system management protocol'?
>
> These were derived from the work the RtgYangDT originally did where we
were organizing everything under a single device tree. This tree concept
was (rightly) abandoned to be replaced with use of tags. Examples of
protocols would be Syslog, TACAC+, SNMP, Netconf, ... I've added that to
the description.
>
I am generally not a fan of definition by example. Is SSH a 'system
management protocol'?
An example is not a definition.
The IETF is supposed to know the difference.
Do you have some suggestions for text that could replace the examples?
Some of these things seem painful obvious, like do we *really* need to define
what we mean by a routing protocol?
Thanks,
Chris.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
