Re: [IANA #1271464] expert review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend (xml-registry)

Hi Martin and Tim,

I submitted version -15 with reference to RFC 8792 and added the following
text:
Note: '\' line wrapping per [RFC8792].

Please let us know if this resolves the issue.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 6:31 PM Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> > On Apr 27, 2023, at 00:07, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> >
> > This looks like a place where the document failed to include the
> standard RFC 8792 boilerplate.  Adding that would solve the problem, I
> think.
>
> What do you mean by the “stardard RFC 8792 boilerplate”? What do you feel
> is missing from the draft.
>
>
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8792#section-7.1.1
> >
> > That is, the backslash will go away if you extract the content with the
> appropriate process.
> >
> > Otherwise, those lines are really going to blow the 72 character limit.
> Though perhaps the example would be cleaner if it used namespaces and moved
> the declarations to the top.  It's a bit repetitive as it is and maybe you
> don't need to invoke RFC 8792...
> >
> >              <preference xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\
> >                ietf-rib-extension">30</preference>
> >              <tag xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\
> >                ietf-rib-extension">99</tag>
>
> Right. We need to fold these longer lines.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 09:34, Tim Bray wrote:
> >> In the XML examples in Appendix B, we see things like this:
> >>
> >>          <destination-prefix xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\
> >>            ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing">0.0.0.0/0</destination-prefix>
> >>
> >> Since the \-escaped newline is not legal in XML, the example would
> >> cause failure if it were copy-and-pasted as is. So there should
> >> probably be an editorial note clarifying that the \-escaped newlines
> >> are there for clarity and should not be used in practice.  Or I guess
> >> if you put in a perfectly legal newline before the xmlns= and again
> >> before the ">", you might be able to avoid the escaping?
> >>
> >> As with many other YANG namespaces, constructs such as
> >>
> >>      <address-family xmlns:v4ur="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\
> >>        ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing">v4ur:ipv4-unicast</address-family>
> >>
> >> are not interoperable in general-purpose XML tools, and it seems a
> >> common practice in YANG-related RFCs neither to avoid this problem nor
> >> to acknowledge its existence, so while I will continue to mention it
> >> when I see it, I don't expect anyone to address it.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 2:23 PM David Dong via RT
> >> <drafts-expert-review-comment@iana.org> wrote:
> >>> Dear Tim and Martin (cc: rtgwg WG),
> >>>
> >>> As the designated experts for the ns registry, can you review the
> proposed registration in draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend for us? Please see
> >>>
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/
> >>>
> >>> The due date is May 10, 2023.
> >>>
> >>> If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication,
> we'll make the registration at
> >>>
> >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/
> >>>
> >>> With thanks,
> >>>
> >>> David Dong
> >>> IANA Services Specialist
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtgwg mailing list
> > rtgwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>