> On Mar 28, 2020, at 8:36 AM, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A wholesale lack of YANG reference clauses; perhaps half a dozen needed
> I can see 2 places I might could put these, in the "astronomical-body" leaf
> that references the IAU and in the "geodetic-system" for the default value.
> We are creating an IANA registry for the values in geodetic-system though so
> perhaps you are asking for an IANA reference instead? I don't see 4 more
> obvious places for external references, could you help point them out?
> <tp> A good starting point is any reference in the body of the I-D should be
> in the YANG module too in a reference clause, such as www.iau.org, IS6709,
> WGS84 and may be more than once for different description clauses. velocity
> could include the formula or refer back to RFCXXXX perhaps timestamp too.
> RFC8344 has enough (but not too many IMHO).
I'll go through the doc, and see what else I might could add. A couple points
in the meantime though...
Some of these references (non-normative) in the document are for the
comparisons to other work, and they point at other outside normative
definitions for similar objects. I think it would be wrong to put references in
the YANG module that point away from the definitive work (this document) and
towards some other normative standard.
For velocity, referring back to the RFC that defines the module within
sub-statements of the module seems rather redundant. The reference at the top
of the module is the default reference for the module, if one starts adding the
same reference to module sub-statements where does it end?
Other than that, I'll comb through again to look for normative references that
aren't yet in the module, and also address your other concerns in a follow up
version of the document.
Thanks for the review and comments!
Chris.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
