Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice?

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Kent,
> 
> Before I post the change, there is the question of whether SN Appendix
> A should be totally dropped, or whether it should be tweaked and
> inserted into NETCONF-Notif.

I think an example of what a transport-specific module looks like
should be in this document.  Adding an example tranport module to the
netconf transport draft (that eventually already defines a real
transport module) doesn't make much sense.

However, the example in this draft should be made for an example
transport, rather than for NETCONF.  And the module should be named as
such.  Specifically, it must not be called
"ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications", but instead
"example-something...".



/martin




> 
> Moving it to NETCONF-Notif would allow SN section 2.5.7 to retain a
> reference to a non-normative example augmentation without SN becoming
> dependent on a document split of RESTCONF-Notif.
> 
> Eric
> 
> > No further comments are coming, so it seems that we've reached in end.
> > I'm glad we had the discussion.
> > 
> > Eric, please post an updated SN draft without the mandatory choice.
> > 
> > Kent
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>