Thanks to all for the discussion around including example modules along with
YANG module in RFCs. I have seen the discussion explore different avenues, but
some things everyone seems to agree upon (and summarized by Benoit) are:
- We want to have instance examples next to the IETF YANG module. Granted
- We want to have those instance examples WITHIN the same document as the YANG
module. I guess so.
This is ideal but is it always possible, because there might be different
contexts?
See Rob Wilton's comment in the IETF 124 NETMOD meeting minutes
- I understand that the community would like a different tags for the instances
(next to CODE BEGINS/END)
And we have some in XML, great.
- What I am not sure: do we also need the tags for the text draft/RFC (next to
XML)?
and with the following suggestion from Carsten,...
> On Oct 14, 2025, at 9:13 AM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 2025, at 16:45, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> type=“yang”…
>
> Actually,
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types
>
> has:
>
> • yang
> • yang-instance-data+json
> • yangtree
>
> (and you can get additional ones of needed, and media types can also be used
> as source code-types.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
While the work around Veloce can continue to explore the existence of YANG
modules and examples in GitHub, and without distracting from the current state
of how source code is included in RFC,
I am going to request sourcecode-type for ‘yang-examples’ to include complete
YANG examples that should be validated, and ‘yang-instance-data+xml’ to include
complete YANG instance examples within the same document.
For tags in text draft, with all its relics, I am not opposed to the idea of
using EXAMPLE BEGINS/END to extract complete example modules/instances of data.
Cheers.
Mahesh Jethanandani
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
