On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
Hi Benoit,Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says: The "<CODE BEGINS>" tag SHOULD be followed by a string identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of [RFC7950]. While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says: The name of the file SHOULD be of the form: module-or-submodule-name ['@' revision-date] ( '.yang' / '.yin' ) "module-or-submodule-name" is the name of the module or submodule, and the optional "revision-date" is the latest revision of the module or submodule, as defined by the "revision" statement (Section 7.1.9). While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous. That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the revision statement is optional within the module? What is the recommendation for when the revision statement is present? The RFC7950 text isn't clear. My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision statement appears within the module.
That makes sense. Any other views? Regards, Benoit
Kent // contributor -----ORIGINAL MESSAGE----- Dear all, [Preparing the IETF hackathon] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis#section-4.2 What is the guideline regarding: <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" versus <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo.yang" Right now, we have a mix of behaviors. This implies that the extracted YANG modules sometimes contains the revision, but not always. Regards, Benoit _______________________________________________ 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
