>> How about filing a Technical Erratum to convert them all? The data model
>> would be unaffected...
>
> I do not support changing this RFC.
> I was pointing out that nobody objected to this practice during the review
> process.
> The extra "-grouping" text does not bother me.
And obviously not me either.
> Changing the name would break every "uses" that already exists, so not a good
> idea.
Maybe not. I'm suggesting *adding* something like this:
grouping foo {
uses foo-grouping;
}
That shouldn't break anything. All existing "uses" would still be valid?
>> 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.
>>
>
> I agree that SHOULD NOT is too much here.
> Naming conventions and styles are subjective.
>
> The 'type' suffix is more common than 'grouping'.
> That is out now too?
Right, and "-list" isn't uncommon either.
Kent // contributor
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- netmod@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to netmod-le...@ietf.org
