Subject: [netmod] yang-09, sec 11.1, YIN mapping table

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:52:51 -0800

Hi,

Some of the YIN mapping rules seem rather random to me.

Why is reference-stmt encoded as an attribute
but description-stmt is encoded as a <text> element?
And contact, organization, etc. are encoded as an <info>
element?

I propose that all the purely descriptive YANG statements
that are unrestricted strings all be encoded as an
element called <text>.

OLD entries:

            | contact          | info          | true        |
            | description      | text          | true        |
            | error-message    | value         | true        |
            | organization     | info          | true        |
            | reference        | info          | false       |

NEW entries:

            | contact          | text          | true        |
            | description      | text          | true        |
            | error-message    | text          | true        |
            | organization     | text          | true        |
            | reference        | text          | true        |

This also allows the xml:lang attribute to be applied, if desired.

Andy

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:22:55 +0100 (CET)

> that are unrestricted strings all be encoded as an

I agree.

> This also allows the xml:lang attribute to be applied, if desired.

/martin

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:53:40 -0800

>> This also allows the xml:lang attribute to be applied, if desired.

Are these changes going to be made?

I think the table of arbitrary names and element/attributes
is non-optimal, and YIN is over-engineered, but these are
normal operating conditions in the IETF, so I will go back
to ignoring the YIN syntax (like almost everybody else).

Andy

---

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:18:43 -0500

>Are these changes going to be made?

-1 for me.

>to ignoring the YIN syntax (like almost everybody else).

You've said in previous emails that you "never intend to write
modules in YIN", you think "YIN is not important enough to worry
about", that it is "not worth the trouble of implementing", and
that you think "Nobody is going to use it".

I'm suspecting that you are not the target audience for YIN.

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:20:36 -0800

> I'm suspecting that you are not the target audience for YIN.

right.  I think the ratio between the effort
put into YIN by the WG and its utility is already
skewed in the wrong direction.  I will drop the
whole thing.  I'm sorry I even bothered to read
that section, let alone try to improve it.

Andy

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:36:14 +0100 (CET)

> Are these changes going to be made?

I plan to do these changes unless anyone object.  I think it makes
sense to harmonize these names.  (Ok, saw now that Phil objects).

/martin

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:49:00 -0800

> sense to harmonize these names.  (Ok, saw now that Phil objects).

reference as attribute is a bug, right?

The YIN argument names are subjective, but all 5 of these
seem the same to me.

I guess after 25 years of writing C code, I am
biased towards curly braces and against verbosity.

Andy

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:52:52 +0100 (CET)

> reference as attribute is a bug, right?

I think so.

> The YIN argument names are subjective, but all 5 of these

Agreed.

/martin