> On Apr 11, 2025, at 11:18 AM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > This 'bad' practice (foo-grouping) has been used in RFCs as recently as RFC > 9640.
No one seemed to care in the years the WG was working on these documents. Those documents are just recently published. How about filing a Technical Erratum to convert them all? The data model would be unaffected... > In general, avoiding redundancy is a good idea, but naming conventions for > different > types of identifiers are quite common. Perhaps use "-g" instead of "-grouping"? The goal for the YANG to be readable. I created this convention in order to make it more readable, because otherwise it became confusing when "foo" could be a a substring found in many identifiers (module names, groupings, containers, etc.). I had issues trying to navigate the modules before, which resolved after introducing the typing convention. I personally think there is bike-shedding going on here, and the 8407bis guidance is overreaching. Strange how no one asked me why I did this, to seek for a solution that addresses the issue I ran into. Kent // contributor _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- netmod@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to netmod-le...@ietf.org
