Hi, Balázs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com> wrote: > See below BALAZS2. > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > Sent: 2019. november 7., csütörtök 16:17 > To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com> > Cc: a...@yumaworks.com; netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] comments on > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-04 > > Balázs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > See below! Balazs > > > > > > > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Andy Bierman > > Sent: 2019. október 10., csütörtök 17:34 > > To: Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > > Cc: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] comments on > > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-04 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:06 AM Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com > > <mailto:m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > BALAZS: It does follow the pattern except that I made the revision date > > mandatory. It is needed to properly understand the instance data. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > BALAZS: The leaf-list lists not the instance data files but the content > > defining YANG modules, so IMO “.yang” is an appropriate extension. It is > > really a YANG schema file we are listing. > > No, you are not listing a file name, you are listing the name and, > optionally, the revision of a YANG *module*. It can internally be stored as > a .yang file a .yin file, or as a blob in a database. > > Hence, we should not have the ".yang" suffix here. > BALAZS2: > OK, I will add the '.yin' possibility.
IMO this is even worse. Which suffix should I use? What difference does it make? > I would like to keep the file extension because > ietf-yang-t...@2015-12-07.yang > looks more familiar I think it is a bad idea to use something that looks familiar but change the meaning of it. It is *not* a filename, it is a pair modulename + optional revision; an identifier for the module. , will be easier to understand, than just > ietf-yang-types@2019-12-07 > IMHO in practice systems might very well use it for file lookup. But if I use this for file lookup, and I use YIN, and I try to use an instance file that lists the modules as ".yang", this won't work. Perhaps solve this by changing the leaf-list into: container inline-modules { list module { key name; leaf name { ... } leaf revision { ... } } } /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod