Hi all,
Because the RFC Production Center carefully reviews YANG documents and
validates YANG modules, we reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis for
impacts on our procedures.
We'll update our procedures to capture the following:
o Checking for the new required normative references.
o For IANA-maintained modules, asking authors to confirm that
the module complies with Section 4.30.3.1.
o Ensuring that examples are set to <sourcecode markers="true">.
o Checking that the Security Considerations section matches the
latest approved template unless the module complies with [RFC8791]
or defines a YANG extension.
The following were added to rfc8407bis, but the RPC already does them:
o Validate example modules.
o Uses the command "pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length
69"
We will assume the authors have done the following before their document
enters the RFC Editor queue:
o Added a mention in the narrative section about
the classification of a given model.
o Ensured that the IANA Considerations section complies with
Section 4.30.3.
o Mentioned in the Introduction if the document contains major
NMDA exceptions or includes a temporary non-NMDA module.
o Have used "yangson" or "yanglint" to check compliance of
JSON-encoded examples with target data models.
o Have used reserved values in examples.
o Have placed long tree diagrams are in an appendix
(i.e., the RPC won't move tree diagrams).
Questions:
Should the RPC replace a module-specific URL with the registry URL?
Do we know when/if pyang will be updated?
Thanks and best regards,
Jean
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
