On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 8:52 AM Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Balázs Lengyel <[email protected]> wrote: > > See below BALAZS2. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> > > Sent: 2019. november 7., csütörtök 16:17 > > To: Balázs Lengyel <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] comments on > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-04 > > > > Balázs Lengyel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > See below! Balazs > > > > > > > > > > > > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Andy Bierman > > > Sent: 2019. október 10., csütörtök 17:34 > > > To: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> > > > Cc: NetMod WG <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] comments on > > > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-04 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:06 AM Martin Bjorklund <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > o leaf-list module > > > > > > The type of this leaf-list is a string with: > > > > > > pattern '.+@\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}\.yang'; > > > > > > I think the revision needs to be optional, and the suffix ".yang" > > > dropped, since it doesn't add any value: > > > > > > pattern '.+(@\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2})?'; > > > > > > (same for inline-spec). > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO the filespec SHOULD follow the pattern in > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-5.2 > > > > > > BALAZS: It does follow the pattern except that I made the revision > date mandatory. It is needed to properly understand the instance data. > > > > > > > > > > > > Except a new file extension SHOULD be used. > > > > > > Suggest: .yif == YANG Instance File > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously it would be a horrible idea to use .yang since that > > > extension > > > > > > is already used to identify a YANG schema file. > > > > > > BALAZS: The leaf-list lists not the instance data files but the > content defining YANG modules, so IMO “.yang” is an appropriate extension. > It is really a YANG schema file we are listing. > > > > No, you are not listing a file name, you are listing the name and, > optionally, the revision of a YANG *module*. It can internally be stored > as a .yang file a .yin file, or as a blob in a database. > > > > Hence, we should not have the ".yang" suffix here. > > BALAZS2: > > OK, I will add the '.yin' possibility. > > IMO this is even worse. Which suffix should I use? What difference > does it make? > > +1 > > I would like to keep the file extension because > > [email protected] > > looks more familiar > > I think it is a bad idea to use something that looks familiar but > change the meaning of it. It is *not* a filename, it is a pair > modulename + optional revision; an identifier for the module. > > , will be easier to understand, than just > > ietf-yang-types@2019-12-07 > > IMHO in practice systems might very well use it for file lookup. > > But if I use this for file lookup, and I use YIN, and I try to use an > instance file that lists the modules as ".yang", this won't work. > > > Perhaps solve this by changing the leaf-list into: > > I think your original proposal is the correct solution: mod-name [ @revision ] The YANG module files (.yang or .yin) are not actually available, so unlike <get-schema>, they do not matter. The file reader app needs to be capable of finding module files on its own. > container inline-modules { > list module { > key name; > leaf name { ... } > leaf revision { ... } > } > } > > > /martin > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
