Re: [netconf] WG LC for three drafts or two of them

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Thu, 09 July 2020 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <010001733425c8e0-7a4174bd-93a1-48a5-a719-14bd0645a84f-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048043A0C5C for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 08:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hYXNcofJXYn3 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 08:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-96.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-96.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B85943A0C7C for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 08:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono; d=amazonses.com; t=1594307758; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=aG6K3NqEzDcZL5JAr+OrXEKSUSYv7CxvS//hj7Lp93A=; b=QjoPUo30D1Qbset5BpomXTeDUk6U4U7SY0InAWBnnINcXXzw8agD5UJauxFXxoJ0 ruMaEfzbrmCez6F/rm0ASAwX2wD4pCSsxi+t4QPJqgdt2SHX15q/Vih1fiyTf9mDA8m suKh4KKB/hiVAHs/0qEVkl77eoAkyIGA0t9D4dlM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
In-Reply-To: <DBAPR07MB701633CE8D0C31D9766B1B03A09B0@DBAPR07MB7016.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:15:58 +0000
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <010001733425c8e0-7a4174bd-93a1-48a5-a719-14bd0645a84f-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <A1A5BD42-AB3F-477A-B291-81E213A2F0DB@gmail.com> <BL0PR11MB3122ABE4CF14BAF3805DFF2FA1810@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR11MB3122B9D49C37501D64E762C6A1810@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DBAPR07MB7016F753766FCE8AD12A2F5DA09E0@DBAPR07MB7016.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DBAPR07MB7016369E32D8534F7C967719A09A0@DBAPR07MB7016.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DBAPR07MB7016633BBB363EC5C259DE0CA09B0@DBAPR07MB7016.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <01000172c7a9cda8-3214ef17-890f-4f42-a9ab-b5b3730350a7-000000@email.amazonses.com> <DBAPR07MB701633CE8D0C31D9766B1B03A09B0@DBAPR07MB7016.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.07.09-54.240.8.96
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9hXM0bdsqYZbBx7m-4vlq_sP1hg>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WG LC for three drafts or two of them
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:16:07 -0000

Hi Tom,

> 1) Much of this text should surround tree diagram snippets.   As Juergen implied yesterday, a wall of tree diagram artwork alone doesn’t make for a great “overview”.
> 
> <tp>
> I am unconvinced about surrounding tree snippets in this case.  I note that Juergen said
> '  - Is there any semantic difference between
>     trust-anchor-cert-grouping and end-entity-cert-grouping, i.e., why
>     do we need two groupings? Same question for
>     trust-anchor-certs-grouping and end-entity-certs-grouping. If
>     there is a semantic difference, perhaps this should be highlighted
>     in the grouping description'
> and if you are reverse engineering the YANG I think that that is a likely view.  What I did was put the text side by side. no intervening YANG or tree diagram or ..., when I think that the semantic difference is clearer to the reader.  It may then be a question as to whether or not we need both but I think that my formatting brings out the existing semantic difference which inserting anything YANG or YANG-like obscures.
> 
> Tom Petch

I’ve probably failed you here with the latest updates, where I did replace the wall of tree diagrams with snippet-specific sections.  Each section does have some discussion about the nature of the snippet, but it may not get at each specific detail.

The problem is that there are so many details that reproducing it all would likely take more text than the YANG module itself…and, worse, the duplicate text would be difficult to maintain.

Honestly, as I wrote in my other response to Juergen just now, a “yang2rfc” utility that could generate all this text off the YANG+docstrings would be awesome.

Kent