All, No-one replied to this. Fair enough, because it probably seems a rather trivial question! But I wanted to point out that a practical consequence of the description being a long way down a module is that the license text could easily be missed (assuming it’s in the top-level description, which is the usual IETF - and BBF - practice). In one BBF module (lots of includes, each of which has a revision-date and uses 3 lines), the top-level description begins at line 149 out of 204.
OK, we could put a comment nearer the top of the file that points the reader further down the file, or we could move the license text into a comment near the top of the file. But usual YANG practice (and I like this) seems to be to prefer to put information into YANG statements rather than into comments. Thoughts? Thanks, William > On 9 Jun 2016, at 12:30, William Lupton <wlup...@broadband-forum.org> wrote: > > All, > > RFC 6020bis says “The ABNF grammar [RFC5234] [RFC7405] defines the canonical > order. To improve module readability, it is RECOMMENDED that clauses be > entered in this order.” > > The ABNF places linkage-stmts (import, include) before meta-stmts > (organization, contact, description, reference) but if there are a lot of > linkage statements (which will be the case in the main module if there are a > large number of submodules… as there are for some of the modules that BBF is > defining) this means that the description can be a fair way down the module. > > Would there be any support for regarding placement of the meta statements > before the linkage statements as not being a violation of canonical order? > Note (this might be inadvertent) that the ABNF actually defines “meta-stmts” > before “linkage-stmts”. > > Thanks, > William _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
