On 3/8/2018 3:31 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
On 3/8/2018 3:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:21:01PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
I see two solutions from here.
1. we mention "pyang -f yang --yang-canonical --keep-comments FILE" in
RFC6087bis, with a warning such as: "As the tool matures, a human
might need
to polish the results"
2. we don't mention "pyang -f yang --yang-canonical --keep-comments
FILE" in
RFC6087bis, but we ask the YANG doctors to run the tests.
I am not sure it is a good idea to hard code command line options of
specific tools in a BCP document. We should require that things are
consistently indented and stay away from the advice of the day how
to achieve that.
RFC 6087 mentions "pyang --ietf" and
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams mentions "pyang -f tree
--tree-line-length 50"
Maybe we can say that "for example, a tool like pyang can be used ..."
This is a good compromise I would say.
Regards, Benoit
If not in RFC6087bis, where would we document this?
As a rhetorical question: How many of the YANG doctors were aware of
and are enforcing this command?
Background Info.
Typical question I've been receiving lately (in this case from IANA):
When requesting the final files from the RFC-Editor, the file they
extracted using their tool and the yang modules appear to have a lot
of blank space in them. Is this OK?
The extraction tools often produce additional blank lines b/c it is
tricky to know how many blank lines were in the original module when
all you have is the RFC in ascii.
/martin
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
