On 23/10/2018 19:39, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:
Hi Martin,
one quick comment; the header used in the examples in
section 8 isn't equal to the header defined in section 5.1
This is intentional. Section 5.1 says:
The first line is the following 46-character string that MAY be
surrounded by any number of printable characters.
Ok.
The rationalization here is:
- scripts can easily center the text with equal amounts of some
chosen character. The script in the Appendix, which was used
to fold examples 8.1 thru 8.4, uses '=' characters.
- manual folding is difficult to center, and hence other framing
is more suitable. For instance, the example in Section 8.5.
Ok, but what's the point? Why not use a fixed header? IMO it might
also improve readability by have a common well-known header.
I'm on the fence on this one. I like the idea of having a fixed header
(and perhaps footer as well), but if they are padded to 72 characters
then the header may be quite jarring to the surrounding text (e.g. the
YANG tree diagram example that I provided previously, and reproduced below):
========== NOTE: '\\' line wrapping per BCP XX (RFC XXXX) ===========
module: ietf-if-l3-vlan
augment /if:interfaces/if:interface/if-cmn:encapsulation/\
\if-cmn:encaps-type:
+--:(dot1q-vlan)
+--rw dot1q-vlan
+--rw outer-tag!
| +--rw tag-type dot1q-tag-type
| +--rw vlan-id ieee:vlanid
+--rw second-tag!
+--rw tag-type dot1q-tag-type
+--rw vlan-id ieee:vlanid
Thanks,
Rob
/martin
_______________________________________________
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
