From: Kent Watsen <k...@watsen.net> Sent: 01 January 2022 13:30 The fist couple paragraphs here apply: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-4.3.1
<tp> Indeed they do. I had forgotten that. What triggered my post was a review in 2021 (AD, YANG Doctor) which told an author to use lower case since YANG did not use upper case and I took that on board - I should have been more circumspect and intend to do so in future. Tom Petch 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
