Re: [netmod] <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]" or <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo.yang"

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/03/2017 08:09, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >> Hi Benoit,
> >>
> >> Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:
> >>
> >>     The "<CODE BEGINS>" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
> >>     identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
> >>     [RFC7950].
> >>
> >> While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:
> >>
> >>     The name of the file SHOULD be of the form:
> >>
> >>       module-or-submodule-name ['@' revision-date] ( '.yang' / '.yin' )
> >>
> >>     "module-or-submodule-name" is the name of the module or
> >>     submodule, and the optional "revision-date" is the latest
> >>     revision of the module or submodule, as defined by the
> >>     "revision" statement (Section 7.1.9).
> >>
> >> While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
> >> square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
> >> That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the
> >> revision statement is optional within the module?  What is
> >> the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
> >> The RFC7950 text isn't clear.
> >>
> >> My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file
> >> name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision
> >> statement appears within the module.
> > That makes sense.
> > Any other views?
> 
> I don't feel strongly, but would it make more sense if instead
> rfc6187bis stated that the file name SHOULD include the revision date?
> I.e. 7950 states what the filename is allowed to look like and 6187bis
> states what they should look like for IETF produced models.

+1


/martin