Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-04

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Reshad,
> 
> thanks for your review. Comments inline...
> 
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 03:30:48PM -0800, Reshad Rahman wrote:

[...]

> > - grouping implementation-parameters should be renamed
> > module-implementation-parameters?
> 
> This name change may make sense.

I agree.

> > - The groupings defined are used only once. For
> > yang-library-parameters I see why this is done since it can be
> > reused. But for others such as implementation-parameters, I don’t
> > see why a grouping is needed. Maybe this is just authors’ preference
> > to regroup information.
> 
> I am not sure which modules would be using these groupings and whether
> it is necessary to provide these groupings. I know that some versions
> of schema mount used some of the groupings but this may not be
> necessary anymore with the new library structure. I assume Martin
> knows more details about which groupings may be useful to provide for
> possible reuse reasons.

The addition of these groupings was requested by someone in the WG b/c
they wanted to be able to build some "module-related" data structures
w/o the implementation details, IIRC.

> > - Description of leaf module in list deviation: by
> > “self-referential” I assume that this means that the reference can
> > not refer to the ietf-yang-library module? While this may seem
> > obvious I believe it’d be good to spell it out.
> 
> No, the intention was to say that a module should not list itself as a
> deviation module, neither directly or indirectly. I guess we have to
> describe this better. Perhaps something along these lines:
> 
>         description
>           "A module that deviates the module associated with this
>            entry. This reference MUST NOT (directly or indirectly)
>            refer to the module being deviated.
> 
>            Clients, MUST make sure that they handle a situation
>            where a module deviates itself (directly or indirectly)
>            gracefully.";

But if the first paragraph says that servers MUST NOT do X, why should
we say that clients MUST handle not(X)?

I think we should use your new first paragraph and remove the second.



/martin