Subject: [Tools-discuss] Tool request: datatracker link(s) to RFC-extracted YANG module(s)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:53:39 +0100

Dear all,

We now have some YANG modules published in RFCs.
     http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGOutOfRFC.html
     http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGOutOfRFC.png

How do we provide the YANG modules to the wider audience is the problem 
at stake.

If you are familiar with the tooling, https://github.com/xym-tool/xym is 
a convenient tool to extract modules from RFCs and drafts.  There is 
another tool, smilint. Both tools should (we tried hard) provide the 
exact same outcome, but the outcome might differ by some extra blank 
lines... which complicate validation but that's a different story.
This issue: going from a YANG module => a YANG model embbeded in a txt 
draft with additional page breaks => extracted YANG module ==> some 
complications.

If you are familiar with github, all YANG modules are at 
https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/master/standard/ietf/RFC
     See the latest pull request so that it's up to date: 
https://github.com/YangModels/yang/pull/121

In the end, we should observe that a YANG module (or a MIB module, or 
code ...) embedded in a RFC is not easily accessible to the wider audience.
Sure there is CODE BEGINS/CODE ENDS as delimiters. Even those is a pain: 
I spent one hour this morning sending email to authors, explaining how 
to use them correctly.

The tool request is for datatracker links to extracted piece of information.
I would be happy with manual provisioning (pointing to github in my 
case) at this point in time.
I would be happy with RFCs only at this point (we have the same issue 
with drafts, but one problem at a time).

In parallel, we could think of a longer term solution: dissociate the 
YANG module, MIB module, code, etc. from the draft text ... and post 
both separately. This implies, no more .txt draft, I guess. I believe I 
read something about this in the new RFC format documents, but we would 
need a solution now.

Feedback?

Regards, Benoit

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:58:22 -0500

> I spent one hour this morning sending email to authors, explaining how 

Perhaps better would be an IANA registry mapping

    RFC-number
    module-name
    module-description
    pointer-to-clean-copy

each RFC could mention it in "IANA Considerations", and if the clean
copies have to be moved, the registry could be bulk-updated by AD
request or something simple.

Dale

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:49:03 +0100

Thanks Dale,

The more I think about this issue, the more I believe that we should 
implement the only viable solution: dissociate the YANG module, MIB 
module, code, etc. from the draft text.

Regards, Benoit
> .