Re: [babel] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-yang-model-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin V,

I have modified the model to comply with the strict checking that Martin B suggests.

Thanks.

> On Jun 2, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Martin, Mahesh,
> 
> so what is the conclusion on that?
> 
> Thank you
> -m
> 
> Le 2021-05-19 à 17:18, Mahesh Jethanandani a écrit :
>> Hi Martin,
>>> On May 18, 2021, at 11:40 PM, Martin Björklund <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The YANG module does not compile correctly with PYANG, it should be
>>>>> easy to fix
>>>>> though :-) See:
>>>>> https://yangcatalog.org/results/ietf-babel@2021-05-12_ietf.html
>>>>> Or is it a PYANG error ?
>>>> 
>>>> This is a tooling error (even though I have gone ahead and changed it
>>>> in the model). The ABNF grammar says the following for identity-stmt
>>>> in RFC 7950.
>>>> 
>>>>   identity-stmt       = identity-keyword sep identifier-arg-str optsep
>>>>                         (";" /
>>>>                          "{" stmtsep
>>>>                              ;; these stmts can appear in any order
>>>>                              *if-feature-stmt
>>>>                              *base-stmt
>>>>                              [status-stmt]
>>>>                              [description-stmt]
>>>>                              [reference-stmt]
>>>>                          "}") stmtsep
>>>> 
>>>> According to it, the ‘if-feature’ and ‘base-stmt’ can appear in any
>>>> order. But for some reason pyang version 2.4.0 insists on a particular
>>>> order. I will bring this up with tooling folks.
>>> 
>>> This is not a tooling error.  The error message is:
>>> 
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>:148: error: keyword "if-feature" not in
>>>    canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
>>> 
>>> [side note: the RFC ref in this error message should be updated to RFC
>>> 7950 Section 14]
>>> 
>>> The referenced section says:
>>> 
>>>   The ABNF grammar [RFC5234] [RFC7405] defines the canonical order.
>>> 
>>> When we publish YANG models in RFCs we use the canonical order in
>>> order to have a consistent format.  pyang checks this when the flag
>>> --ietf is used.
>> I am trying to understand, and this is more for my education, what rule within the grammar is determining the canonical order?
>> Also, should pyang report this as an error, or maybe a warning might be better? After all, this is being done for consistency reasons.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> /martin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> == COMMENTS ==
>>>>> 
>>>>> The related links on should be updated. E.g., the YANG catalog entry
>>>>> should be:
>>>>> https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-babel@2021-05-12
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Section 2.2 --
>>>>> I usually use the expanded tree view rather the YANG module itself to
>>>>> get a
>>>>> global view. Is there any reason why the full tree view is not
>>>>> included?
>>>> 
>>>> Added this to the Appendix.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Section 5 --
>>>>> Is there any reason why the doc shepherd is not acknowledged ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> == NITS ==
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Section 2.3 --
>>>>> s/MAC based security/MAC-based security/ ?
>>>> 
>>>> Fixed.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]