Re: [yang-doctors] Normative Language in YANG descriptions

I use 2119 language in *all* my YANG modules because I want the YANG module to be the most-normative part of the draft (the single source of truth), with the other normative sections in the draft containing little to no duplicative text.  Thus most, if not all, of the semantics are captured in the YANG description statements.

To do this, I put the 2119 boiler template into the YANG module’s top-level description statement, so the module is understandable even in a standalone context, after being stripped from the final RFC.  For instance, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8572#section-6.3 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8572#section-6.3>.

Personally, I think all RFCs used to publish YANG modules should be written using 2119 language this way.

Kent

> On Sep 17, 2020, at 1:05 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1.
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2020, at 4:53 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> All, 
>>  
>> I just received a comment on validation in a description statement for ietf-routing-policy. The comment was more of a question as whether “should” should be “SHOULD”. I looked at our existing published models and we have not been doing this consistently. Perhaps we SHOULD when it is normative validation.
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> _______________________________________________
>> yang-doctors mailing list
>> yang-doctors@ietf.org <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list
> yang-doctors@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors