[Changing the subject line as the discussion is tangential to the work at hand]
Hi Andy/Tom, Here is how I am trying to rationalize this: Should (complete, and not code snippets) example modules (or instance data examples) be validated? Per rfc8407bis, Section 3.2.1, it is pretty clear that they should be validated. Are those examples normative? The answer is no, and that is why the examples should exist in the non-normative section of the draft. Separate from that, the question is how the examples can be validated? The tools can validate them only if they are standalone files. To create those standalone files, they have to be extracted from the draft. Would you agree that how we extract them is less important than being able to do so? We can discuss whether we need a different tag to extract (complete) examples, but given the current toolset, I do not believe we have a conflict in how the examples are extracted and named. Cheers. > On Sep 24, 2025, at 9:36 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 4:26 AM tom petch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Sent: 23 September 2025 21:47 >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> My take is that code markers only say where the code begins and where it >> ends. It does not distinguish between it being YANG, MIB, an example or any >> other piece of code. The code markers can specify which file the said code >> should extract into. We do not need separate code markers for different >> pieces of code. >> >> <tp> >> >> Colour me confused. If we do not need separate code markers for different >> 'types' of code (which I agree with), then that tells me that the >> CODE START and CODE END should not appear in this I-D but should be replaced >> by CODE BEGINS and CODE ENDS. >> > > > Correct. > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28.html#name-code-components > > Note that the MUST NOT rule in 3.2.1 is not being followed, and example > modules are commonly > documented as code components. > > There was discussion about EXAMPLE BEGINS/ENDS, but a new macro like that was > not added. > There was discussion about the importance of IETF Trust IPR issues associated > with code components. > That is why the guidelines draft distinguishes between normative and > non-normative YANG modules. > > Since examples are quite common in all I-Ds, this seems like an important > precedent being set here. > As a consumer of RFCs, I do not really want dozens of extracted files for > ad-hoc example snippets. > These snippets are not code components, and it would be better to handle > example validation another way. > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
