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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

I believe it is up to the author/wg/iesg member of the day.

/js

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:21:45AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:09 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> [e-mail]> 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 <
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1.
> > > >
> > > >> On Sep 16, 2020, at 4:53 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=
> > [e-mail] <mailto:acee=[e-mail]>>
> > 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
> > > >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors <
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>
> > > > Mahesh Jethanandani
> > > > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > yang-doctors mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
> > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > yang-doctors mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
> >
> >
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > yang-doctors mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
> >

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>