Hi Martin and Tim, I submitted version -15 with reference to RFC 8792 and added the following text: Note: '\' line wrapping per [RFC8792].
Please let us know if this resolves the issue. Thanks, Yingzhen On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 6:31 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > > On Apr 27, 2023, at 00:07, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This looks like a place where the document failed to include the > standard RFC 8792 boilerplate. Adding that would solve the problem, I > think. > > What do you mean by the “stardard RFC 8792 boilerplate”? What do you feel > is missing from the draft. > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8792#section-7.1.1 > > > > That is, the backslash will go away if you extract the content with the > appropriate process. > > > > Otherwise, those lines are really going to blow the 72 character limit. > Though perhaps the example would be cleaner if it used namespaces and moved > the declarations to the top. It's a bit repetitive as it is and maybe you > don't need to invoke RFC 8792... > > > > <preference xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\ > > ietf-rib-extension">30</preference> > > <tag xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\ > > ietf-rib-extension">99</tag> > > Right. We need to fold these longer lines. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 09:34, Tim Bray wrote: > >> In the XML examples in Appendix B, we see things like this: > >> > >> <destination-prefix xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\ > >> ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing">0.0.0.0/0</destination-prefix> > >> > >> Since the \-escaped newline is not legal in XML, the example would > >> cause failure if it were copy-and-pasted as is. So there should > >> probably be an editorial note clarifying that the \-escaped newlines > >> are there for clarity and should not be used in practice. Or I guess > >> if you put in a perfectly legal newline before the xmlns= and again > >> before the ">", you might be able to avoid the escaping? > >> > >> As with many other YANG namespaces, constructs such as > >> > >> <address-family xmlns:v4ur="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\ > >> ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing">v4ur:ipv4-unicast</address-family> > >> > >> are not interoperable in general-purpose XML tools, and it seems a > >> common practice in YANG-related RFCs neither to avoid this problem nor > >> to acknowledge its existence, so while I will continue to mention it > >> when I see it, I don't expect anyone to address it. > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 2:23 PM David Dong via RT > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Dear Tim and Martin (cc: rtgwg WG), > >>> > >>> As the designated experts for the ns registry, can you review the > proposed registration in draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend for us? Please see > >>> > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/ > >>> > >>> The due date is May 10, 2023. > >>> > >>> If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, > we'll make the registration at > >>> > >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ > >>> > >>> With thanks, > >>> > >>> David Dong > >>> IANA Services Specialist > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtgwg mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
