search

ietf-ccamp-wg / ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext-RFC9093-bis

CCAMP WG repository for ietf-layer0-types-ext
3 stars 3 forks source link

Convention for ITU-T Recommendations #26

Closed italobusi closed 1 year ago

italobusi commented 3 years ago

I am not sure if there is any convention in YANG modeling to use or not use "." in variable names. For example, in iana-if-type.yang it uses "identity ieee8023adLag" as opposed to "802.3". Maybe just removing ".", to make it like G652, G653.

_Originally posted by @agva123 in https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext/pull/25#discussion_r647060343_

italobusi commented 1 year ago

According to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-4.3.1:

Identifiers SHOULD follow a consistent naming pattern throughout the module. Only lowercase letters, numbers, and dashes SHOULD be used in identifier names. Uppercase characters, the period character, and the underscore character MAY be used if the identifier represents a well-known value that uses these characters. YANG does not permit any other characters in YANG identifiers.

I think that RFC8407 allows using the . for ITU-T Recommendation numbers since it is a well-know value

sergiobelotti commented 1 year ago

April 11 weekly call: Aihua: If it is not prohibit the usage of "." , we can use the "." also in YANG statements.

sergiobelotti commented 1 year ago

the last decision is that "If it is not prohibit the usage of "." , we can use the "." also in YANG statements. RFC8407 allows using the "." for ITU-T Recommendation numbers since it is a well-know value (see above https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext-RFC9093-bis/issues/26#issuecomment-1503279997)