On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:34 AM Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:06 AM Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have some mostly cosmetic comments on this draft.
>>
>> o "YANG" should be spelled "YANG". Not Yang etc.
>>
>>
>> o "NETCONF" should be spelled "NETCONF".
>>
>>
>> o leaf-list module
>>
>> The type of this leaf-list is a string with:
>>
>> pattern '.+@\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}\.yang';
>>
>> I think the revision needs to be optional, and the suffix ".yang"
>> dropped, since it doesn't add any value:
>>
>> pattern '.+(@\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2})?';
>>
>> (same for inline-spec).
>>
>>
>>
>
> IMO the filespec SHOULD follow the pattern in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-5.2
>
> Except a new file extension SHOULD be used.
> Suggest: .yif == YANG Instance File
>
> Obviously it would be a horrible idea to use .yang since that extension
> is already used to identify a YANG schema file.
>
>
Sorry about the confusion over this comment.
There should be reusable typedefs defined in rfc6991bis representing the
format in 7950, sec. 5.2
There should also be file extensions defined for an XML or JSON file that
is expected to
follow the YIF structure.
Andy
> o schema-uri
>>
>> The description says:
>>
>> A reference to another YANG instance data file.
>> This instance data file will use the same set of target
>> YANG modules, revisions, supported features and deviations
>> as the referenced YANG instance data file.
>>
>> I don't understand what this means. Does it mean that the schema
>> for this document is the same as the schema defined in the
>> schema-uri file, or that the schema-uri file defines the schema in
>> its content-data?
>>
>> I *think* it is the former. In either case, the name of the leaf
>> can perhaps be changed to reflect the semantics, rather than the
>> syntax (i.e., don't call it xxx-uri just b/c its type is an uri).
>> Perhaps 'same-schema-as-file'.
>>
>>
>> o Data node naming.
>>
>> The current structure of the model is:
>>
>> +--rw (content-schema-spec)?
>> | +--:(simplified-inline)
>> | +--rw module* string
>> | +--:(inline)
>> | | +--rw inline-spec* string
>> | | +--rw inline-content-schema <anydata>
>> | +--:(uri)
>> | +--rw schema-uri? inet:uri
>> ...
>> +--rw content-data? <anydata>
>>
>>
>> To make the instance document more understandable, I suggest the
>> following structure, which adds a wrapping container for the
>> schema, and renames the inline and uri nodes:
>>
>> +--rw content-schema
>> +--rw (content-schema-spec)?
>> | +--:(simplified-inline)
>> | +--rw module* string
>> | +--:(inline)
>> | | +--rw inline-module* string
>> | | +--rw inline-schema <anydata>
>> | +--:(uri)
>> | +--rw same-schema-as-file? inet:uri
>> ...
>> +--rw content-data? <anydata>
>>
>>
>>
>
> +1, except not in favor of so many ways to specify schema.
> That means the file reader MUST support all of them.
>
>
>
>> o Format the YANG module
>>
>> I suggest you run the YANG module through:
>>
>> pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69
>>
>> o 3.2
>>
>> The element "<netconf-state>" needs a namespace declaration.
>>
>>
>>
>> /martin
>>
>>
>>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> /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
