From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]>
Sent: 11 February 2022 08:21
>> (I’m also still not sure I’ve got an answer to my question about using
>> inconsistent prefixes between YANG and the XML example. What is being
>> demonstrated here?)
>>
> <tp>
> If you are referring to
> " Is there a reason to violate the SHOULD?"
I’m referring to the question I was trying to ask when I said this :-)
> I did not see that as related to the thread but thought it was answered
> anyway by Juergen. As he said, the SHOULD gets violated when prefix clash
> which, in the absence of a registry, a namespace, for prefix is possible.
Yes, and thanks to him for answering my question as a general question.
I was answering to a throwaway note that the authors got flak when their XML
did not use the defined prefix. My question was: why do that, then? Maybe
that was not understood because “ianaift” actually *is* the prefix preferred in
the YANG module, so my question doesn’t make sense. (I’m not sure what the
throwaway referred to.)
<tp>
Try again.
I have commented a number of times on a YANG import which defines a prefix
other than that in the RFC. Last month, it was
import ietf-hardware {
prefix ietfhw;
Usually, when I comment on this, the authors accept my comment and change the
prefix - they did on this occasion - but sometimes I get pushback along the
lines that YANG Guidelines is only a 'SHOULD' and we think that we have a good
reason to ignore the 'SHOULD' . To date, I have never agreed with the reason
and go on commenting:-) If that is flack, then yes, I have - and will -
generate flack:-)
Tom Petch
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
