Re: [yang-doctors] ietf yang toplevel node names
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 24 November 2017 11:52 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C521279EB for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 03:52:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1wrwjRsmNYhP for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 03:52:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B65251277BB for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 03:52:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1436; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1511524356; x=1512733956; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uO2KFwxzy6S9px7FBaJ01VRuhE677ZA7LEOEQ1kB+tU=; b=gXPZ8Je6yW47/v6gTn86owjXKBpGc1nhjy6mGM9H9SF4TuoUcLrBgAnn HlNAmiu/5QO+09qkKFhjInRoYAVaQgLy2q8Ucspn7+n448+r576Lijla+ AEUVaOdr+dMNMH481mqji+0ZhU58R8VB+P5TsmiHyvGCshUZCjgL80V+W w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CCAgCXBxha/xbLJq1cGwEBAQEDAQEBCQEBAYUQhCaLE6cKghEKhTsChR0WAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFIAYjDwEFUQsaAiYCAlcTCAEBih6nfIInin0BAQgCJoEPgiuDXIISgwKFaIJJgkMgBYdgmmaPQ4VJjAWHSY5Eh3aBOiYCMIFQMhoIGxWCY4RVQIskAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,447,1505779200"; d="scan'208";a="457158"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Nov 2017 11:52:34 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAOBqYIg015258 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 11:52:34 GMT
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
References: <20171029084249.zodlvlcwc4uumw47@elstar.local>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <ddc6a19f-ea36-63ec-093a-572985119195@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 12:52:34 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171029084249.zodlvlcwc4uumw47@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/4uSYYHpYQIivRdmdS8e4n9ATAtg>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] ietf yang toplevel node names
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 11:52:38 -0000
Jürgen, Does RFC6087bis have appropriate text on that front? Regards, B. > Hi, > > here is what I compiled today since I needed an overview: > > -rw interfaces ietf-interfaces RFC 7223 > -rw ipfix ietf-ipfix-psamp RFC 6728 > -rw key-chains ietf-key-chain RFC 8177 > -rw lmap ietf-lmap-control RFC 8194 > -ro modules-state ietf-yang-library RFC 7895 > -rw nacm ietf-netconf-acm RFC 6536 > -ro netconf-state ietf-netconf-monitoring RFC 6022 > -rw routing ietf-routing RFC 8022 > -rw snmp ietf-snmp RFC 7407 > -rw system ietf-system RFC 7317 > -ro system-state ietf-system RFC 7317 > > -ro interfaces-state ietf-interfaces RFC 7223 (to be deprecated) > -ro routing-state ietf-routing RFC 8022 (to be obsoleted) > > If you ignore the -state nodes, things actually look reasonable. > Perhaps it makes sense to pay attention during YANG reviews what the > WGs choose as their toplevel nodes so that things look somewhat > reasonable. No, I am not interested in a discussion of a 'device > model' - just about making sure WGs and authors choose names that > somehow align with what we have. > > /js >
- [yang-doctors] ietf yang toplevel node names Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [yang-doctors] ietf yang toplevel node names Benoit Claise
- Re: [yang-doctors] ietf yang toplevel node names Juergen Schoenwaelder