Hi Martin, > On Apr 27, 2023, at 00:07, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > > This looks like a place where the document failed to include the standard RFC > 8792 boilerplate. Adding that would solve the problem, I think.
What do you mean by the “stardard RFC 8792 boilerplate”? What do you feel is missing from the draft. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8792#section-7.1.1 > > That is, the backslash will go away if you extract the content with the > appropriate process. > > Otherwise, those lines are really going to blow the 72 character limit. > Though perhaps the example would be cleaner if it used namespaces and moved > the declarations to the top. It's a bit repetitive as it is and maybe you > don't need to invoke RFC 8792... > > <preference xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\ > ietf-rib-extension">30</preference> > <tag xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\ > ietf-rib-extension">99</tag> Right. We need to fold these longer lines. Thanks, Acee > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 09:34, Tim Bray wrote: >> In the XML examples in Appendix B, we see things like this: >> >> <destination-prefix xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\ >> ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing">0.0.0.0/0</destination-prefix> >> >> Since the \-escaped newline is not legal in XML, the example would >> cause failure if it were copy-and-pasted as is. So there should >> probably be an editorial note clarifying that the \-escaped newlines >> are there for clarity and should not be used in practice. Or I guess >> if you put in a perfectly legal newline before the xmlns= and again >> before the ">", you might be able to avoid the escaping? >> >> As with many other YANG namespaces, constructs such as >> >> <address-family xmlns:v4ur="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\ >> ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing">v4ur:ipv4-unicast</address-family> >> >> are not interoperable in general-purpose XML tools, and it seems a >> common practice in YANG-related RFCs neither to avoid this problem nor >> to acknowledge its existence, so while I will continue to mention it >> when I see it, I don't expect anyone to address it. >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 2:23 PM David Dong via RT >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Dear Tim and Martin (cc: rtgwg WG), >>> >>> As the designated experts for the ns registry, can you review the proposed >>> registration in draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend for us? Please see >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/ >>> >>> The due date is May 10, 2023. >>> >>> If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, we'll >>> make the registration at >>> >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ >>> >>> With thanks, >>> >>> David Dong >>> IANA Services Specialist > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
