On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 7:28 AM Per Andersson (perander) <peran...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> on Tuesday, March 12, 2024 15:14: > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 6:58 AM Jan Lindblad <j...@tail-f.com<mailto: > j...@tail-f.com>> wrote: > >> Then we have the other thing with RESTCONF where the module names are > used instead, which also causes some (unnecessary) confusion. If NETCONF > and RESTCONF could use the same "prefixes", things would be easier. In the > early days of programming (I mean in the 60's), FORTRAN programmers were > told to choose short function and variable names. This mindset has long > since been abandoned. Why is this still a good practice in YANG prefixes? > > > > I disagree with any changes to module prefixes. > > They are not confusing to anybody who bothers to learn a little about > YANG. > > Long prefixes make YANG harder to read, not easier. > > I disagree with this (hence agree with Jan). > > It was confusing to learn that RESTCONF and NETCONF > use different prefixes. > > Short prefixes are nice when writing, longer descriptive prefixes > are better when reading. Why would otherwise other identifiers > have these long form names, and not have short identifiers too? > > Module names need to be longer so they are unlikely to clash. All other identifiers are scoped within a namespace, so no technical reason to be longer. I agree that using prefixes that are already assigned should be avoided. > > -- > Per Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
