I hate embedding my YANG modules into an I-D (or RFC). The YANG module has very very poor textual properties; no sections, references. Non-existant formatting, very short lines after indenting sensibly for RFC publication.
Personally, as things are, I want to put as *FEW* details in my YANG description as possible, and put as much as I can in the more easily manipulated I-D. BUT, that's not really a useful direction as YANG modules become separated from the I-D/RFC. If I had my druthers, it would be the YANG MODULE that was assembled from snippets of YANG spread throughout the I-D, not the I-D that was generated from the YANG (as Jeff suggested). Like Jupyter worksheets. Given that it's not going that way, I would encourage: 1. YANG as a first-class DT object, in parallel with I-Ds. 2. relaxing/changing the YANG textual format to allow for better editorial control. 3. stop treating YANG as a weird kind of RFC, to be reviewed in the same way. Many recent documents have been processed as an (1)RFC w/semantics + (2)RFC w/YANG. So that (2) can be revised easier. Just stop making (2) an RFC. Make (2) like all other reference code. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
