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

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Clemm" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 2:20 AM

> +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.

<tp>

That's what I thought until Benoit said, and Robert agreed, that

'In the end, the tree view should be browsed with tooling.'

i.e. the tree view should be machine readable after which something is
produced for human consumption; not a view I share.

Tom Petch


   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