Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 07 December 2017 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E655127869 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:38:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 n1UyQ--My66M for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [70.40.196.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF00C127BA3 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw2 (unknown [10.0.90.83]) by gproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F83D215DBD for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:38:21 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) 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; d=labn.net; 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 pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:52124 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1eN5k9-002eUW-8Q; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:38:17 -0700
To: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>, 'Mahesh Jethanandani' <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, 'Robert Wilton' <rwilton@cisco.com>, netmod@ietf.org, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
References: <20171115.101454.1576716701146734257.mbj@tail-f.com> <bb0f2cf8-ca46-21af-02cd-79970a08db7e@cisco.com> <0696749C-0E80-40CC-9905-BD8187CB6D78@gmail.com> <014a01d35e87$98797950$c96c6bf0$@gmail.com> <00143927-dc4d-5db8-e3ce-dbd56366a06c@labn.net> <20171117070043.pm7rn25yj3hxum3q@elstar.local>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <4df13805-f4c8-89da-f986-64da816bea0b@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 7 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 - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1eN5k9-002eUW-8Q
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:52124
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 6
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/8Vt6ZFAAagFh5OD1Gn24CDRFufM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:38:26 -0000

Hi,

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

I have created two  wikis off of
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart, 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:  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart

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
   structure.

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
    [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].

These changes can be found at:
https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-tree-diagrams/commit/53919e0a4549c285758eb5aaaf02cf980269afff

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

Lou


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 [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh
>>>> Jethanandani
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
>>>> To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
>>>> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
>>>> 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 <rwilton@cisco.com> 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@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod