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, 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 - 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
- [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Susan Hares
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines Andy Bierman