Subject: [netmod] WGLC very minor nits

From: David Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:27:41 -0400

Here are some very very minor issues in the yang doc:

Section 4.1, first paragraph on page 14:

   so content in YIN can round-tripped back into YANG

should be

   so content in YIN can be round-tripped back into YANG

--

Section 5.1, second paragraph

   Submodule are partial modules that contribute definitions to a

should be

   Submodules are partial modules that contribute definitions to a

--

Section 5.2, first paragraph

   or submodule per file.  The name of the file SHOULD be on the form:

should be

   or submodule per file.  The name of the file SHOULD be of the form:
                                                          ^^
--

section 7.1, third paragraph

   submodule names that will have a low probability of colliding with

should be

   module names that will have a low probability of colliding with

--

section 7.7.1 applies to both lists and leaf-lists, but only mentions list.
I suggest making it clear that it applies to both.

--

section 7.14, paragraph 1

   information.  The notification "statement" defines a notification

should be

   information.  The "notification" statement defines a notification

--
section 9.1 paragraph 2

   When NETCONF servers sends data, it MUST be in the canonical form.

should be

   When a NETCONF server sends data, it MUST be in the canonical form.

--

section 9.4.7, last example

     00ABAB      // illegal
     xx00        // illegal

it might be helpful to add a note in the comment to explain why it is illegal,
something like:

     00ABAB      // illegal, too long
     xx00        // illegal, bad characters

--

section 9.5, the boolean type does not have a canonical form section.

--

section 9.6.4.2, the section on the bit's position statement states that the
value is not used by yang or the xml encoding. It might be helpful to use
the same wording with the enum's value statement. It also might be helpful
to show the xml encoding in the usage example like is done for bits.

---

The first sentence in section 1 ("Today, the NETCONF protocol [RFC4741] lacks 
a standardized way to create data models") will be wrong the day the draft 
is published as proposed standard. I suggest changing the first paragraph to 
past tense, or better yet, just remove the whole paragraph.

-David Reid

---

From: David Spakes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:01:45 -0400 (EDT)

A few more minor nits in the yang doc:

Section 7.7.3, first paragraph on page 64:

   A valid leaf-list or list MUST have least min-elements entries.

should be

   A valid leaf-list or list MUST have at least min-elements entries.

--

section 7.9.6, first paragraph on page 80:

   Since only one of the choices cases can be valid at any time, the

should be

   Since only one of the choice's cases can be valid at any time, the

Regards,

David Spakes

-------------------------------------------------------------
 David Spakes                       email:   [email-masked]
 SNMP Research                      voice:   +1 865 573 1434
 3001 Kimberlin Heights Road          fax:   +1 865 573 9197
 Knoxville, TN  37920-9716  USA      http://www.snmp.com
-------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:27:53 +0200 (CEST)

> A few more minor nits in the yang doc:

Thanks, fixed.

/martin

> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:07:52 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

I applied all your suggested changes.  For details, see below.

> I suggest making it clear that it applies to both.

I just added explicit leaf-list to the first sentence:

  YANG supports two styles for ordering the entries within lists and
  leaf-lists.

But it would be cumbersome to repeat it in all places.  Hopefully this
is enough.

> section 9.5, the boolean type does not have a canonical form section.

Added:

*** Canonical Form

The canonical form is the same as the lexicographical representation.

> the same wording with the enum's value statement.

Done.

> It also might be helpful

I added:

  leaf myenum {
      type enumeration {
          enum zero;
          enum one;
          enum seven {
              value 7;
          }
      }
  }

The lexicographic representation of the leaf "myenum" with value
"seven" is:

  <myenum>seven</myenum>

> past tense, or better yet, just remove the whole paragraph.

Bert had the same comment, and I agree.  I have removed this
paragraph.

/martin