Re: [netmod] comments on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-04

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello Martin,
> I will update the draft following most of your comments. See details below.
> Regards Balazs
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund
> Sent: 2019. október 10., csütörtök 14:05
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [netmod] comments on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-04
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have some mostly cosmetic comments on this draft.
>   o  "YANG" should be spelled "YANG".  Not Yang etc.
> BALAZS: OK
>   o  "NETCONF" should be spelled "NETCONF".
> BALAZS: OK
>   o  leaf-list module
>     The type of this leaf-list is a string with:
>       pattern '.+@\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}\.yang';
>     I think the revision needs to be optional, and the suffix ".yang"
>     dropped, since it doesn't add any value:
>       pattern '.+(@\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2})?';
>    (same for inline-spec).
> BALAZS: I disagree, IMHO we need the revision date. We want to know the 
> exact version the data was produced against. If the version would be 
> unknown it might become very hard to understand whether the instance 
> data is correct or not.

The point is that the revision statement is optional in YANG.  If the
module doesn't have a revision statement I can't list it here.

> 
>   o  schema-uri
>     The description says:
>           A reference to another YANG instance data file.
>           This instance data file will use the same set of target
>           YANG modules, revisions, supported features and deviations
>           as the referenced YANG instance data file.
> 
>    I don't understand what this means.  Does it mean that the schema
>    for this document is the same as the schema defined in the
>    schema-uri file, or that the schema-uri file defines the schema in
>    its content-data?
> 
>    I *think* it is the former.  In either case, the name of the leaf
>    can perhaps be changed to reflect the semantics, rather than the
>    syntax (i.e., don't call it xxx-uri just b/c its type is an uri).
>    Perhaps 'same-schema-as-file'.
> BALAZS:  OK, I changed the description hope it is easier to understand now.
>             description
>               "A reference to another YANG instance data file.
>                This instance data file will use the same
>                content schema as the referenced file.";

Thanks, better.  Perhaps: s/will use/uses/

>   o  Data node naming.
>     The current structure of the model is:
>         +--rw (content-schema-spec)?
>         |  +--:(simplified-inline)
>         |     +--rw module*                 string
>         |  +--:(inline)
>         |  |  +--rw inline-spec*            string
>         |  |  +--rw inline-content-schema   <anydata>
>         |  +--:(uri)
>         |     +--rw schema-uri?           inet:uri
>         ...
>         +--rw content-data?         <anydata>
> 
> 
>     To make the instance document more understandable, I suggest the
>     following structure, which adds a wrapping container for the
>     schema, and renames the inline and uri nodes:
> 
>         +--rw content-schema
>            +--rw (content-schema-spec)?
>            |  +--:(simplified-inline)
>            |     +--rw module*                 string
>            |  +--:(inline)
>            |  |  +--rw inline-module*          string
>            |  |  +--rw inline-schema           <anydata>
>            |  +--:(uri)
>            |     +--rw same-schema-as-file?    inet:uri
>         ...
>         +--rw content-data?         <anydata>
> BALAZS: OK, accepted
> 
>   o  Format the YANG module
>     I suggest you run the YANG module through:
>       pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69
> BALAZS: OK (I will do it, but I don't agree with a number of its formatting
> changes.
> 
>   o  3.2
>     The element "<netconf-state>" needs a namespace declaration.
> BALAZS: OK


/martin