On 30/05/2023 20.28, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote:
It is unclear what "identical" means here. If two people extract a module from an RFC, they may not end up with identical byte sequences. So does white space matter when we talk about MUST be identical? What about comments? The problem is that the IETF still publishes YANG modules in RFCs instead of files.
As for RFC vs. files, the mechanics of extracting of files from RFCs seems to be well established, plus it is an IETF-owned cron job which updates https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/main/standard/ietf/RFC -- so I would (and I actually do) assume that is the normative source of byte-exact files.
In my opinion "identical" leaves little room for interpretation: it is byte-exact, i.e. md5sum (and everything else of that kind) returning the same value.
If we were to say "equivalent", now that would be a whole another kettle of fish.
I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe there is a single normative statement about handling equivalent Unicode encodings. As a tool author, I believe having that is a hard prerequisite to be solved before we ever embark on pulling in YANG semantics into the conversation.
I do have opinions around that, in particular the equivalence of - description "foo" - description 'foo' - description fooand the order of preference of those (which may contradict best current practice), but I certainly do not have the cycles to engage in that discussion to a reasonable depth :(
Regards, Robert
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
