Re: [yang-doctors] Consistency for naming lists and leaf-lists

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,
In ietf-ospf.yang and ietf-isis.yang, we did define an enclosing container for many of the lists. The impetus was that this would allow it to be retrieved with a single query. I do agree that we should have a guideline for this as we went back and forth. For example:

        container interfaces {
            description "All interfaces.";
            list interface {
              key "name";
              description
                "List of OSPF interfaces.";
              leaf name {
                type if:interface-ref;
                description
                  "Interface name reference.";
              }
              uses interface-config;
              uses interface-state;
            }

Thanks,
Acee


From: yang-doctors <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:53 AM
To: YANG Doctors <[e-mail]>
Subject: [yang-doctors] Consistency for naming lists and leaf-lists

Hi,

Perhaps this has been debated to death, or there is already an agreement, but do we have an agreed consistent approach for naming/containing lists in YANG?

In particular:

1)      Should the list be enclosed in its own container (e.g. interfaces/interface)?

2)      Should the name of the list be singular or plural?

3)      Should leaf-lists be treated similarly?

4)      What if the list is a top level YANG node, does it get put into a container in that scenario (e.g. network-instances/network-instance)?

I think that it would be good if we can have a consistent approach during reviews, perhaps folding into a future update of RFC 8407.

Looking at a couple of the recent models in RFCs, would seem to suggest:

1)      Top-level data nodes should probably always be containers

2)      Lists don’t need to be enclosed in a container (and should not be top-level data-nodes).

3)      Names of lists and leaf-lists should be singular not plural.

Does that align with other folk’s opinions?

Thanks,
Rob