Andy,
Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi,

I have one question related to "5.1.  Module Naming Conventions".

Currently, the YANG modules that I have included as part of my
individual IDs don't currently use an "ietf-" prefix because the
drafts haven't been adopted as WG documents yet.

However, this means that the pyang tool throws up a warning for this.
E.g.
interfaces-com...@2015-10-19.yang:1: warning: RFC 6087: 4.1: no module
name prefix used, suggest ietf-interfaces-common

So, am I right in not including the ietf prefix for non WG adopted
drafts?  If so, should the above warning in pyang be made
informational instead?
I think it wiuld be useful if 6087bis provided guidelines for these
kinds of modules as well.

That said, I think that pyang --ietf should still flag this as an
error.  When checking a non-WG module, use --lint instead of --ietf.
Section 4.9 mentions:


     4.9
     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05#section-4.9>.
     Validation Tools



   All modules need to be validated before submission in an Internet
   Draft.  The 'pyang' YANG compiler is freely available from github:

      https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang

   If the 'pyang' compiler is used, then the "--ietf" command line
   option SHOULD be used to identify any IETF guideline issues.


You might want to insert the new pyang --lint options for other SDOs.

Regards, Benoit


/martin

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.


_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to