On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 5:35 PM Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 11, 2025, at 11:18 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This 'bad' practice (foo-grouping) has been used in RFCs as recently as > RFC 9640. > > No one seemed to care in the years the WG was working on these documents. > > Those documents are just recently published. How about filing a Technical > Erratum to convert them all? The data model would be unaffected... > > I do not support changing this RFC. I was pointing out that nobody objected to this practice during the review process. The extra "-grouping" text does not bother me. Changing the name would break every "uses" that already exists, so not a good idea. > > > In general, avoiding redundancy is a good idea, but naming conventions > for different > > types of identifiers are quite common. > > Perhaps use "-g" instead of "-grouping"? > > The goal for the YANG to be readable. I created this convention in order > to make it more readable, because otherwise it became confusing when "foo" > could be a a substring found in many identifiers (module names, groupings, > containers, etc.). I had issues trying to navigate the modules before, > which resolved after introducing the typing convention. > > I personally think there is bike-shedding going on here, and the 8407bis > guidance is overreaching. Strange how no one asked me why I did this, to > seek for a solution that addresses the issue I ran into. > > I agree that SHOULD NOT is too much here. Naming conventions and styles are subjective. The 'type' suffix is more common than 'grouping'. That is out now too? > > Kent // contributor > > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
