The quoted text applies to the resolutione of foo:bar within YANG, which is different from resolving foo:bar within an XML serialized data tree.
> Is there a reason to violate the SHOULD? There is no global registry of prefixes, hence collisions in the prefix namespace can occur. /js On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 06:48:37PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 3. Feb 2022, at 18:43, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> [mj] That is correct. We have been beaten up enough number of times for > >> not using the prefix defined by the YANG module. Is the suggestion to > >> state that in the draft? > > > RFC 7950, Section 7.1.4: > > When used inside the "import" statement, the "prefix" statement > defines the prefix to be used when accessing definitions inside the > imported module. When a reference to an identifier from the imported > module is used, the prefix string for the imported module followed by > a colon (":") and the identifier is used, e.g., "if:ifIndex". To > improve readability of YANG modules, the prefix defined by a module > SHOULD be used when the module is imported, unless there is a > conflict. If there is a conflict, i.e., two different modules that > both have defined the same prefix are imported, at least one of them > MUST be imported with a different prefix. > > Is there a reason to violate the SHOULD? > > Grüße, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Jürgen Schönwälder 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
