I think changing the canonical format because some people may miss the
copyright since they have to scroll down a bit is not really worth the
pain of having different canonical formats out there. And something
like

 // please scroll down to see the license

does seem to sovle the problem.

/js

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:20:02AM +0100, William Lupton wrote:
> 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

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

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

Reply via email to