Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 07/09/2017 22:23, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 10:51:54AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> I suggested the naming guideline because the NMDA design team decided to
>> add semantics to certain naming patterns, so authors have to be warned.
>>
>> But this is a really bad idea (and slippery slope).
> I agree.
I think that there are really a few aspects to this:

1)I think that it is a good goal to try and achieve a consistent style 
across the IETF YANG modules.  This helps both readers and 
implementors.  E.g. sticking child "config" and "state" containers in 
the tree in a similar style to OpenConfig may be in-congruent with how 
with how most IETF YANG modules are written.

2) I think that is also some common sense guidance here, which is to 
avoid using node names that may prevent a module for being sensibly 
updated in future.  Hence I think that names that related to the scope 
of the data (e.g. "state", "*-state", "config", and "*-config") should 
generally be avoided, because it is possible that the scope of that data 
may change.  Something that is only operational state in a standard 
model may become configurable by a future revision, or perhaps via 
vendor deviation.

3) The top level "*-state" containers seems to be an undocumented 
historical rule in the context of the pre NMDA IETF YANG modules. Hence, 
advising people not to create top level containers called "-state" also 
seems to help avoid a potential source of confusion.

I don't know if these are necessarily rules, or just common sense. I 
don't know whether this guidance needs to be documented in rfc6087bis.  
My view is that it would probably be helpful.

Thanks,
Rob


>
> /js
>