The fist couple paragraphs here apply: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-4.3.1
I think that it should be “open-wait” (not openwait). Mimicking RFC values is not as important as having consistency in YANG-driven UI. Happy 2022 y’all! :) K. > On Dec 31, 2021, at 7:50 AM, tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > > A number of protocols name protocol values using camel case, protocols such > as TCP, BGP and PCEP (RFC5440). YANG does not like camel case and so some > YANG module authors put hyphens in instead, so that OpenWait and KeepWait > become open-wait and keep-wait. (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang) > > I strongly believe that the YANG identifiers should follow the protocol > identifiers but can see that the absence of camel case can make them harder > to read, to follow, perhaps when part of a compound identifier such as > peer-keepalive-timer. > > Which is then better, openwait or open-wait? Is there some factor that makes > one preferable. > > Tom Petch > _______________________________________________ > 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
