Andy,
Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi,
I have one question related to "5.1. Module Naming Conventions".
Currently, the YANG modules that I have included as part of my
individual IDs don't currently use an "ietf-" prefix because the
drafts haven't been adopted as WG documents yet.
However, this means that the pyang tool throws up a warning for this.
E.g.
interfaces-com...@2015-10-19.yang:1: warning: RFC 6087: 4.1: no module
name prefix used, suggest ietf-interfaces-common
So, am I right in not including the ietf prefix for non WG adopted
drafts? If so, should the above warning in pyang be made
informational instead?
I think it wiuld be useful if 6087bis provided guidelines for these
kinds of modules as well.
That said, I think that pyang --ietf should still flag this as an
error. When checking a non-WG module, use --lint instead of --ietf.
Section 4.9 mentions:
4.9
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05#section-4.9>.
Validation Tools
All modules need to be validated before submission in an Internet
Draft. The 'pyang' YANG compiler is freely available from github:
https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang
If the 'pyang' compiler is used, then the "--ietf" command line
option SHOULD be used to identify any IETF guideline issues.
You might want to insert the new pyang --lint options for other SDOs.
Regards, Benoit
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
