On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 2:41 AM Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 15, 2024, at 19:13, Per Andersson (perander) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Christian Hopps <[email protected]> on Friday, March 15, 2024 20:10: > >>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 13:26, [email protected] wrote: > >>> > >>> Re-, > >>> I’m not sure to agree with your last statement, Andy. > >>> The reality is that the OLD reco is inducing many cycles and waste of > time for no obvious technical reason: see an example herehttps:// > mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/eknpfAZIb9gX7GvUN1UoByCf5e4/ > >>> Let’s save the authors time with a clear guidance: > >>> • Pick ietf- or iana- as a function of the module > >> > >> I disagree with this guidance. > > > > Can you explain your motivation? > > Well first, what has been state earlier in the thread. But basically they > add almost no value and gratuitously extend what is supposed to be a short > identifier. > > I am sorry for bringing this up. I just grep'ed through about 1000 YANG modules to do a guestimate of the prefix usage, looking for "meaningful" prefixes. It is not that consistent across SDOs. IMO BBF is the best (by far). The IETF has the most 2-letter prefixes. DOTS and TE have structured prefixes (about 7 - 12 chars). IMO these are good examples for new YANG modules. The most important property is that the prefix is meaningful. Thanks, > Chris. > > Andy > > > > > > -- > > Per > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
