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

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:09 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:

> Quoting RFC 8174 (BCP 14):
>
>    o  These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not
>       required.  Specifically, normative text does not require the use
>       of these key words.  They are used for clarity and consistency
>       when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text does not
>       use them and is still normative.
>
>

The decision criteria for using 2119 keywords is not different for plain
text vs. YANG module description-stmts.
I tend to agree with Kent that they should (or is it SHOULD :-) be used in
YANG modules.

> /js
>
>
Andy

> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 03:47:38PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > yang-doctors mailing list
> > yang-doctors@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
>
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list
> yang-doctors@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
>