On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC > 7950. > > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a > standards > > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative text, > > especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior. > > > > RFC 8174: > > o These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not > required. Specifically, normative text does not require the use > of these key words. They are used for clarity and consistency > when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text does not > use them and is still normative. > > So what? Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms. This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case. Either way, the new YANG rules seem half-baked and not ready for standardization. > /js > > Andy > -- > 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
