Thanks. That’s fine. I was just checking for opinions :). W. > On 27 Jun 2016, at 12:03, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > 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
