Hi,
My memory is that yanglint is unable to deal with sx:structure, and so I
haven't even tried lately.
Version 2.1.30 (about 2 years old) is used by IETF and does support it
explicitly.
See: https://github.com/CESNET/libyang/tree/v2.1.30?tab=readme-ov-file
The parsing output also shows that it understands the sx:structure and
understands that a container 'voucher' is to be created from that.
So to really understand why the 2 tools disagree someone/we need to dig
deeper. We as authors will just say that 1 tool thinks it's all right,
and we think it's all right, and let the YANG-doctor review determine if
we need to change anything.
Let's do it again *after* the AD review, setting it to the date it does IESG
telechat.
(We'll know that before the actual telechat day, so the contents can be
That's ok for me! Having the date set to more recent than 2022 after so
many changes sounds like a good idea anyway.
Hmm. The .sid files have the module-revision in the filename.
Is there a reason to do that? I don't think so.
There's a naming convention for .sid files - see Appendix A of RFC 9595.
I would suggest we keep using that!
This is the way to know to which YANG module revision a given .sid file
belongs to.
E.g. files could be stored in an IETF FTP directory.
Esko
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
