[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

Michael Richardson mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Tue Aug 24 18:13:18 PDT 2021


Carsten Bormann <cabo at tzi.org> wrote:
    >> For internet-drafts (what are they? who cares...)   where the YANG might not
    >> validate (or might not validate with the version of pyang that the DT uses),
    >> how does not reference the problem part?

    > I never understood why people are submitting drafts with formal
    > descriptions that don’t even parse.  I’d suggest we stop doing that.

a) because trying to get help with fixing it.

b) because it has a feature that the *DT*'s copy of pyang doesn't parse
   (yet). But, the local version does.

c) because it's a ID about some part of yang that we are enhancing, so the
   YANG is a snippet, and isn't intended to be complete on it's own.

    >>> (And, as a side effect, having the full schema tree identifier handy
    >>> would also help with reading through 40-page YANG specs.)
    >>
    >> It would be nice if we could reflow the YANG and syntax highlight it.

    > Syntax highlighting is one of the applications of type= (and one of the
    > reasons why artwork needs to have a proper replacement for type=, given
    > that type= means something different for artwork).

Yes.

    > Reflowing:
    > I seem to remember that YANG specs are regularly pretty-printed
    > (reformatted) before publishing them; what would “reflowing” add to
    > that?  Reflowing comments (descriptions etc.)?  That would require
    > comments to have a reflowable syntax (e.g., one of the markdown
    > flavors).

Yes, the descriptions.  It's a disaster coordinating what's in the YANG
description, and what's in the document, and keeping them in sync.  How much
detail do you put in each part?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20210824/936b481e/attachment-0001.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list