Re: [YANG] so many naming scopes

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sec. 6.2 lists several naming scopes for various YANG constructs.
> Most of it seems fine, except I am concerned about the confusion factor
> that can result:
> 
> module foo {
>    namespace "http://example.com/foo-ns";
>    prefix "foo";
>    description "do you have anything without foo in it?";
> 
>    typedef foo {
>      type int32;
>    }
> 
>    grouping foo {
>      leaf x { type foo; }
>    }
> 
>    container foo {
>      leaf a { type foo; }
>      uses foo;
>      choice b {
>        case foo {
>          leaf c { type foo; }
>        }
>        case b {
>          container d {
>            uses foo;
>          }
>        }
>      }
>    }
> 
> }
> 
> 
> Is this much flexibility such a good idea?

Maybe not.

> I don't think the lack of individual naming scopes for every
> type of identifier has been a big problem in the SNMP world.

No, but I don't think we should have a single flat namespace for
identifiers like SNMP has.  I can live with one namespace per nesting
level though.

Earlier we had a separate namespace for rpcs and a separate for
notifications as well, but the drawback with that was that we couldn't
use 'augment' to augment these, so we had to have separate statements
'augment-rpc' and 'augment-notification'.  Having a single namespace
actually made 'augment' more flexible.

/martin

_______________________________________________
YANG mailing list
YANG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang