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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

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?

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