Jan Lindblad <[email protected]> writes:
Med, author team, Thank you for taking the time to get this work done, and well done! This is one of those fundamental bricks that saves time and improves quality for the entire YANG community. I read the -09 version and like what I see. I have a couple of minor suggestions you might consider. + In section 3.4 about tree diagrams, the section text is already advocating intermixing smaller tree snippets with explanations (which is great), but I wish we could say that tree diagrams of entire modules SHOULD NOT be included. Just a waste of forest and attention span, imho.
The full tree diagram is literally the thing I read first and most in almost every YANG RFC/draft. Please do not get rid of it.
+ In section 4.11.5 regarding booleans, it is said that booleans can take values true and false. This is true in mathematics :-) but in YANG a boolean leaf can additionally take the "value" of "not set". Actually, "not set" is a possibility for leafs in general, unless it is declared mandatory true, or has a default. In my experience, one of the most common YANG modeling issues is when people model a leaf foo, which isn't mandatory, has no default and the description statement does not say what happens if the leaf is not set. In many cases, there is a sort of natural meaning, but with booleans leafs in particular, the absence of the leaf is typically highly ambiguous. I think this hole merits a recommendation clause in the I-D.
I think this general idea of the author having a clear understanding of not-set for all non-mandatory nodes, and that it is communicated to the user if need be, is a really good one. Though for the particular case of booleans I would think not-set just implies false. Maybe that should be codified if it isn't already. :) Thanks, Chris.
Best Regards, /jan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
