All,
The current -10 draft appears to have addressed all issues raised during the
last call. Thank you to everyone that participated.
I will start the shepherd review now. Hopefully it will go smoothly, as a
number of issues that I raised during the WGLC were related to things that are
typically discovered during the shepherd review.
Kent // co-chair and shepherd
> On Mar 19, 2020, at 8:08 AM, Balázs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Watsen <kent+i...@watsen.net>
> Sent: 2020. március 18., szerda 21:07
> To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com>
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call:
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06 to -07
>
> One more thing, for non-mandatory nodes that don’t have a default value
> specified, please ensure the “description” statement states what it means for
> the node to be set or not set (whichever is easier)? For instance:
>
> OLD:
>
> leaf name {
> type string;
> description
> "Name of the YANG instance data set.";
> }
>
> NEW (assuming this makes sense):
>
> leaf name {
> type string;
> description
> “An arbitrary name for the YANG instance data set. This
> value is primarily used for descriptive purposes. However,
> when the instance data set is saved to a file, then the
> filename MUST encode the name’s value, per Section 3
> of RFC XXXX.";
> }
> BALAZS: OK
> BTW, should the requirement of it needing to be encoded into the filename
> place constraints on the “string” type? Should a “pattern”
> statement be added?
> BALAZS: IMHO defining a pattern for a filename string (that may be dependent
> on the used filesystem) is out of scope for this draft.
>
> Extended description of content-schema.
> IMHO contact, description, revision, timestamp does not need to explain what
> does it mean if they are not present. It only means: no information available.
> Kent
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
