Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

Lou Berger <> Thu, 07 December 2017 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E655127869 for <>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:38:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n1UyQ--My66M for <>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF00C127BA3 for <>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw2 (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F83D215DBD for <>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:38:21 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ([]) by cmgw2 with id jBeH1w00P2SSUrH01BeL2C; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:38:21 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=doKrMxo4 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=ocR9PWop10UA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=NEAV23lmAAAA:8 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=vkzq32B2xekbnaBgMs4A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=wtTZo+zbwJIaMl+VZUcDd0PB6Rcjy/MjES+m50Krf+4=; b=Zb4yp71MTINyd/SowMM0i80T+c Q7YQiDdgTTsVoEZwKdVt+R/uUi3Sv282r89+PrR+7jmQlFf5UbEthZSpiVneoBMWLXz+V+CJLR9i0 hHJbfBYRlGIpZsn1ENyJL62v3;
Received: from ([]:52124 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1eN5k9-002eUW-8Q; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:38:17 -0700
To: Mehmet Ersue <>, 'Mahesh Jethanandani' <>, 'Robert Wilton' <>,, Andy Bierman <>
References: <> <> <> <014a01d35e87$98797950$c96c6bf0$> <> <20171117070043.pm7rn25yj3hxum3q@elstar.local>
From: Lou Berger <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:38:14 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171117070043.pm7rn25yj3hxum3q@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Exim-ID: 1eN5k9-002eUW-8Q
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) []:52124
X-Email-Count: 6
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:38:26 -0000


Following up on this discussion (and hoping to wrap it up):

I have created two  wikis off of, one for 6087bis
content and the other for section 3 of tree diagrams.  I also propose
the following changes to the tree-diagrams draft:

To section 3 intro, add:
    For the most current quidelines being developed, please see the IETF
NetMod Working
   Group Wiki, see:

Add :
  3.2.  Groupings

   If the YANG module is comprised of groupings only, then the tree
   diagram should contain the groupings.  The 'pyang' compiler can be
   used to produce a tree diagram with groupings using the "-f tree --
   tree-print-groupings" command line parameters.

And to section 3.3, start with:

   Tree diagrams can be split into sections to correspond to document

For 6087 bis, I think section 3.4 gets replaced with something like.

    YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG module,
   and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
    structure.  Guidelines on tree diagrams can be found in Section 3 of

These changes can be found at:

This leaves the intended status as the key open issue on the draft.


On 11/17/2017 2:00 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> I am confused. I think there was some consensus to
> - include all tree related guidelines in the tree document, remove all tree
>   related guidelines from 6087bis and have 6087bis point to the tree document
>   (which it already does)
> The rest is pointless since AFAIK there is no wiki guidelines pages to
> point to and there is AFAIK nobody in place to actually maintain such
> a wiki page. Perhaps a wiki is the future but until future has
> arrived, we should not point to it.
> The other proposal I heard was to have a landing page that points to
> the current guideline work which points to the relevant documents. A
> wiki pointing to RFCs and ID, not RFC pointing to wikis. So this does not
> affect the documents.
> /js
> PS: I am happy to add pointers to guidelines as a section to the
>     wikipedia page.
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:42:33AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
>> To circle back to this.  My sense of this discussion (as contributor) is
>> (a) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to point to a "guidelines"
>> wiki page for "the most current guidelines"
>> (b) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to include a full set of the
>> current tree related guidelines
>> (c) 6087bis should be updated to point to a "guidelines" wiki page for "the
>> most current guidelines"
>> (d) 6087bis should have it's tree guidelines point to the tree diagrams
>> document -- in addition to pointing to the wiki
>> Does this sound right?
>> Lou
>> (as tree co-author)
>> On 11/16/2017 11:04 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
>>> The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of pointers to guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mehmet
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: netmod [] On Behalf Of Mahesh
>>>> Jethanandani
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
>>>> To: Robert Wilton <>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
>>>> Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we publish.
>>>> They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are the
>>>> guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this wiki”. I therefore
>>>> would support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a stable point of
>>>> reference with a document, which gets updated occasionally, but also allows
>>>> them to peak at what is coming down the pipeline.
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Robert Wilton <> wrote:
>>>>> I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:
>>>>> I think that it was along the lines of ...
>>>>> The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to the
>>>> guidelines is available on a wiki at ....
>>>>> Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a latest
>>>> version of the guidelines draft.
>>>>> 6087bis looks to be 3.5 years old.  Should folks, e.g. at BBF,, IEEE, or MEF be
>>>> using the latest draft guidelines, or should then use the published RFC until
>>>> 6087bis is actually republshed?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Rob
>>>>> On 15/11/2017 10:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines for
>>>>>> tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or in the
>>>>>> tree diagram document.
>>>>>> Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree guidelines,
>>>>>> or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and instead
>>>>>> publish all guidelines as a wiki?
>>>>>> If it is the former, is it really worth it?
>>>>>> Advantages with a wiki:
>>>>>>    +  It can be updated more easily
>>>>>> Some drawbacks:
>>>>>>    -  It can be updated more easily
>>>>>>       (meaning they are less stable)
>>>>>>    -  Wikis tend to not be alive after some time, and are not that
>>>>>>       easy to find.  Just try to find the various YANG-related wikis
>>>>>>       we've tried to maintain over the years.
>>>>>>    -  Links in RFCs also have problems.  Sites are re-orginized etc.
>>>>>>       As an example, the link to the security guidelines template in
>>>>>>       RFC 6087 doesn't work anymore.
>>>>>>    -  People that are looking for a stable reference will have problems
>>>>>>       (I think Rob mentioned that IEEE still refer to RFC 6087 (which
>>>>>>       is understandable; that's the published version).
>>>>>>    -  Who maintains the Wiki, and what are the rules for updating it?
>>>>>> I suggest we have the tree-related guidelines (actually just a few
>>>>>> sentences) in the tree draft, and since 6087bis already refers to
>>>>>> this document it is not a big problem that guidelines are spread out
>>>>>> over several documents that are difficult to find.
>>>>>> /martin
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>>> .
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list