Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > It turns out that the recommendations on example modules are a bit > > unclear. Different drafts do very different things. Some examples: > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology > > -08#section-6.1.2 > > > > This example module really looks like a real module. It uses an > > IANA-controlled namespace, and the meta-statements indicate that this > > is a normative modules. But the module does not use the <CODE> tags. > > > > > > This example needs to be redone. > > There are 2 conflicting goals that need to be addressed. > > 1) Clearly identify a module as an example; not meant to be implemented; > only present to demonstrate protocol interactions with an example module
Yes - maybe add this text to 6087bis? > 2) Teach people good YANG authoring habits > Way too much cut-and-paste out there so maybe if the examples > follow "pyang --ietf" people will learn the right way to construct a > module This assumes that people copy&paste from example modules. I'm not sure that this a real problem. If they do that when they develop IETF modules, Benoit's script will kick in anyway. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-18#appendix-C.1 > > > > This module is better, but it is written to follow RFC 6087 rules > > (pass pyang --ietf), with the result that it contains a bit of "noise" > > with some meaningless descriptions and meta-statements. It also does > > not use <CODE> tags. > > > > > > A good example (IMO) is found in > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8022#appendix-C > > > > It uses descriptions when necessary (high s/n), no fake > > meta-statements etc. > > > > > > > It does not have a revision-stmt, which is really important > for real YANG modules. Yes, but it is not important for examples (typically). > IMO the random set of description-stmts is no better or worse > than the examples in the RESTCONF draft. > > > > > However, it might be a good idea to require example modules to have a > > "description" statement that explains what the module examplifies. > > For example, the example-rip could have: > > > > description > > "This example module demonstrates how the core routing data model > > can be extended to support a new control-plane protocol. It is > > intended as an illustration rather than a real definition of a > > data model for the Routing Information Protocol (RIP)."; > > > > > > > OK > > > > > > I think that 6087bis is clear when it says: > > > > The guidelines in this document refer mainly to a normative complete > > module or submodule, but may be applicable to example modules and > > YANG fragments as well. > > > > I think this states that example modules do not have to pass pyang > > --ietf. > > > > > > I agree that examples do not need to pass with the --ietf flag. > But is the guideline a SHOULD pass or MAY pass? > (agree it is not MUST pass) The current text implies MAY. Perhaps s/may/MAY/ in the original text in order to make this clear? /martin > > In order to make this more clear, I suggest the following changes to > > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-09 > > > > In the Terminology section 2.4: > > > > NEW: > > > > o Example module: A complete YANG module or submodule that is > > intended to illustrate some specific aspect, but not intended for > > actual use. > > > > > > In section 4: > > > > NEW: > > > > All normative modules or submodules, example modules or submodules, > > and example YANG fragments MUST be valid according to RFC 7950, > > except when they are used to illustrate some illegal constructs. > > > > > > In Section 4.2.1 "Example Modules": > > > > NEW: > > > > An example module SHOULD have a namespace on the form > > > > o http://example.com/<module-name> OR > > o urn:example:<module-name> > > > > An example module SHOULD have a description statement that describes > > that it is an example module, and what it examplifies. > > > > An example module SHOULD NOT have any additional meta-statements > > (i.e., "organization", "contact", or "reference"). > > > > An example module SHOULD use the "description" statement in any > > definition where it is required to understand the example. > > > > > > > > new text is OK with me. > I would make it clear that module description and revision > SHOULD be present. All other optional clauses MAY be present. > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > Andy > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
