Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 02/11/2020 10:34, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Am 02.11.2020 um 11:12 schrieb tom petch:
>> On 01/11/2020 14:59, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>>> What formats do you believe don't have section numbers?  They're in
>>>>> all
>>>>> three rendered formats and in the XML as tags like "section-3.1".
>>>>
>>>> They aren't in raw XML and they aren't in kramdown, so they aren't
>>>> where
>>>> an author needs them when processing comments on an I-D. (So, strictly,
>>>> that isn't an RFC format issue, but it is an issue created by our
>>>> format
>>>> choices and it's quite an annoyance.)
>>>
>>> Sounds like yet another thing that could be improved with better
>>> tooling. Adding and updating comments with section numbers isn't exactly
>>> rocket science.
>>
>> YANG modules do not have section numbers and can be 50 (five zero) pages
>> long and the same identifier (e.g. 'status') can appear multiple times
>> in different branches of the schema tree and the tree can be over 10
>> levels deep so providing the absolute form of the identifier of the leaf
>> that you are commenting on can take more than one line.  Reference by
>> page number is so simple (even ADs use it:-).
>>
>> Tom Petch
>
> And is it absolutely mandatory that the YANG module appears in a single
> chunk?

It is like writing anything in code, modular is better than spaghetti, 
but there is a limit to how far that can go without creating a spiders 
web of interconnections between modules.  The i2nsf I-D I just looked at 
is 55 pages split into three modules and I would not subdivide it any 
further.  YANG modules must be self-contained and comprehensible, 
independent of the RFC they come from so in a well written one, a large 
part with be text description; and the whole idea of YANG was that it be 
text-based, unlike the binary encoding of SNMP, so you have text 
identifiers, type, references to RFC, IANA etc.  It all mounts up.  Five 
pages would be very small.

Tom Petch

Tom Petch




>
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest