Re: [netmod] Request to review the YANG compiler annotations draft.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Vinod Kumar <vinods.kumar@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Martin,
>
>     Thanks for your valuable comments.
>
>     Initially we also wanted to define them as individual extensions and
> use them in the YANG file as indicated by you.
>
>     Below are some reasons, which compelled us to add them as a separate
> annotations(metadata) in YANG file.
>
>     - These extensions are not required while defining the schema, it is
> only required while implementing a schema in a server or client. It is used
> by applications to instruct the YANG utilities or compilers to automate the
> application development related to data organization / processing.
>     - These extension are of internal scope, and should be masked while
> server advertises its schema resources.
>     - These extension values for a given YANG file may not match in server
> and client.
>
>     We felt that annotating is a good option, similar to other languages
> where-in by looking at annotation itself utilities/compilers can perform
> additional functionality as instructed.
>
>     As you have pointed out, it is not a valid YANG 1.0, so we can modify
> it as extensions to be compatible.
>
>    We feel that annotation (compiler) support in YANG is an important
> requirement which needs to be standardized for all compiler implementation,
> hence we believe there is a need to incorporate annotations in YANG 2.0.
>
>

I read your drafts as well.
I strongly disagree that we need standard annotations for something as
implementation-specific
as code generation.  This is way out of scope for the IETF.

> Looking forward for your opinion/feedback.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Vinod Kumar S.
>

Andy

>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
>
>> "vinods.kumar" <vinods.kumar@huawei.com> wrote:
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> >     We have written a draft, to add annotation in YANG definition which
>> can
>> > be used by the YANG compilers.
>> >
>> > We are implementing these drafts as a reference implementation in the
>> IETF
>> > 96 hackathon on ONOS YANG utilities.
>> >
>> > Request you to review the below drafts and provide your
>> comments/feedback.
>> >
>> > Draft(s):
>> >
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-agv-netmod-yang-compiler-metadata/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-agv-netmod-yang-annotation-ds-and-der
>> > ived/
>>
>> I have looked at these drafts.  I have two high-level comments.
>>
>>   1)  What you propose is not valid YANG.  This new syntax would
>>       require a new version of the YANG language.
>>
>>   2)  What you propose is not necessary; it can be done (and is being
>>       done in several existing implementations) with current YANG
>>       syntax and semantics, with normal YANG extension statements.
>>
>>       For example, the draft proposes this:
>>
>>        list server {
>>          ca:compiler-annotation{
>>            @MappedCollection(collection-type='map', map-key='name')
>>            @OverrideImpl('DefaultServer');
>>          }
>>          ...
>>
>>       It can be done today as:
>>
>>         list server {
>>            xx:mapped-collection {
>>              xx:collection-type map;
>>              xx:map-key name;
>>            }
>>            xx:override-impl DefaultServer;
>>            ...
>>
>>
>> /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
>
>