Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06 to -07

[Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 2020. március 18., szerda 21:07
To: Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06 to -07

One more thing, for non-mandatory nodes that don’t have a default value specified, please ensure the “description” statement states what it means for the node to be set or not set (whichever is easier)?   For instance:

OLD:

       leaf name {
         type string;
         description
           "Name of the YANG instance data set.";
       }

NEW (assuming this makes sense):

       leaf name {
         type string;
         description
           “An arbitrary name for the YANG instance data set.  This
            value is primarily used for descriptive purposes.  However,
            when the instance data set is saved to a file, then the
            filename MUST encode the name’s value, per Section 3 
            of RFC XXXX.";
       }
BALAZS: OK
BTW, should the requirement of it needing to be encoded into the filename place constraints on the “string” type?  Should a “pattern”
statement be added?
BALAZS: IMHO defining a pattern for a filename string (that may be dependent on the used filesystem) is out of scope for this draft.

Extended description of content-schema.
IMHO contact, description, revision, timestamp does not need to explain what does it mean if they are not present. It only means: no information available.
Kent