On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:15:26AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:45:36AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > I think some people will be confused by example YANG that is treated > > exactly > > > the same as a normative module except the module name starts with > > "example". > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-22#appendix-C > > > > > > > This example is a good example why requiring --ietf is likely not > > desirable. The example module lacks meta information but this is just > > fine I think for the example. > > > > People who do cut'n'paste blindly will do so regardless how we mark up > > things. We can't fix that problem. > > My point of showing "example-rip" is that there is absolutely no indication > that the extracted module is just an example and not actually supposed > to be implemented. The module looks plenty real to most of us.
Well, its called example-rip. If people go and implement without ever looking at the name etc., well, they get what they deserve to get - an example implemented. > Why does anyone want all the examples extracted exactly? > I completely understand why we want the normative modules that > are supposed to be implemented, but not so sure why <CODE BEGINS> <CODE > ENDS> around an example is supposed to be useful. I thought automated checking of examples was the reason. Or are you saying tools are just fine with extracting YANG anyway, regardless of the convention? If so, we should discuss to get rid of it in general. > I suppose then every type of complete example needs > <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> right? No, only those examples that are complete enough that it makes sense to check them. > Is there something special about a YANG module vs. ABNF or SMIv2? > Why haven't we been doing this for years with these code components? I do not recall many SMIv2 example modules. The reason I think is that we moved towards having more core YANG modules that assume to be extended and this is where more substantial examples come into play. Regarding ABNF, I never understood why ABNF definitions are often difficult to extract. RFC 6020 and RFC 6020bis have the ABNF wrapped in <CODE BEGINS> <CODE ENDS>, which I think is a good way of doing it. /js -- 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
