Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> Wed, 17 January 2018 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
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 E01CA12EC2C for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:21:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 NUflNs61GT4U for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:21:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (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 0E6DB12EC34 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:21:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2782582050F85 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 02:20:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 02:21:00 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.83]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.18]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:20:53 -0800
From: Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "vladimir@transpacket.com" <vladimir@transpacket.com>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams
Thread-Index: AQHTg0wvNmxA9EXf+EaKXhpG/Wu106N2AhOAgADuqACAAEadAIAACPSAgAAF2ACAACYBQA==
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 02:20:53 +0000
Message-ID: <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0EADB145@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <aa7a1449-fd6e-e4c6-7568-41061c09d9f2@transpacket.com> <20180116.115606.561861432247288407.mbj@tail-f.com> <e94d1ed3-e859-3167-501f-ce23e77804df@transpacket.com> <20180116.164053.2123534827829006518.mbj@tail-f.com> <e63efa9f-3114-d59d-e1d8-e62602a830c5@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <e63efa9f-3114-d59d-e1d8-e62602a830c5@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.209.217.214]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Au6ZPldnO6IzBG1uuDU74thvHPw>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams
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: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 02:21:06 -0000

+1 to (2) as preference, followed by (1).  I don't think (3) is needed here.  The purpose is to make this human-readable and provide readers a good sense of the overall structure.  The authoritative specification is still the .yang itself.  Providing some guidance for how to represent the tree is good but let's not over-engineer this; I believe retaining some flexibility is good. 

--- Alex 

> -----Original Message-----
...
> > Does anyone else have an opinion on this?  I can see three
> > alternatives:
> >
> >    1) allow any number of addtional spaces
> >    2) allow any number of addtional spaces + define a suggested
> >       alignment algorithm
> >    3) mandate the alignment algorithm
> 
> Definition of symbols should be precise/consistent, so that readers can
> consistently interpret tree diagrams.
> 
> I think that flexibility in layout should be OK, but the draft should provide
> guideline to ensure the output is readable, and likely to be broadly consistent
> (since consistency aids readability).
> 
> If the IETF data modeling group is trying to specify text output precisely
> enough that it can be screen scraped then we may want to consider whether
> we are focusing on the right solution ;-)
> 
> In summary, (2) is my preference, followed by (1), followed by (3).
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> >
> >
> > /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