Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 30 October 2017 14:50 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 20CD313B0EA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
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_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 weIO7I2MBRfk for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) (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 4FBF713FA20 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw2 (unknown [10.0.90.83]) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E251AB047 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:50:18 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id TqqE1w00l2SSUrH01qqHdf; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:50:18 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=dZfw5Tfe c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=02M-m0pO-4AA:10 a=u07AKapRAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=Cyd4A4qa2fozdD_9rAQA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=SkebfZ6J2Mmvk2rLHZle:22 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:MIME-Version:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:CC:To:From:Sender:Reply-To: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=DM3qlQv14I/p+aiiBmEIS9jpwB/2PfP9fCcocClPvJU=; b=WwnSS+gk+EP+aJoHbOuGmAqrYq pjyvv+g4fUxp8W1Ms4mhjXWEW0otYSRqcfXshGNKrXNhkQIKZWIh9AiZcSO8YJQmAPjSvRXmhjJQR A35FGSfXpllhetj7j9y/NvtZJ;
Received: from [172.58.185.237] (port=40649 helo=[IPV6:2607:fb90:6504:3501:0:45:a4fa:7e01]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1e9BOI-004GzV-KM; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:50:14 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
CC: <netmod@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:50:11 -0400
Message-ID: <15f6dc2e8b8.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20171030.153656.1325329737662426135.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <20171029185057.hecz7vgul343tjki@elstar.local> <20171030.153656.1325329737662426135.mbj@tail-f.com>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.11.0-568 (build: 101100004)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: 172.58.185.237
X-Exim-ID: 1e9BOI-004GzV-KM
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: ([IPV6:2607:fb90:6504:3501:0:45:a4fa:7e01]) [172.58.185.237]:40649
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/I3dm4wYeP03ZreOPn49nPtY_ArM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02
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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:50:26 -0000

Hi,

See below.


On October 30, 2017 10:39:31 AM Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thank you for this review!  Comments inline.
>
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02 and here are
>> my comments (in document order).
>>
>> - I am not sure this is correct:
>>
>>   YANG Tree Diagrams were first published in [RFC7223].  Such diagrams
>>
>>   I think NACM (RFC 6536) already has a tree diagram. This makes for a
>>   difference of ~2 years. Note sure this matter much however.
>
> I'll fix this.
>
>> - Do we have to speak more specifically about 'schema tree diagrams'?
>>   Note that there can be many more 'tree' diagrams, like instance tree
>>   diagrams, identity derivation diagrams, type derivation diagrams,
>>   import relationship diagrams, ... and perhaps it makes sense to
>>   allow for other diagrams to be defined over time.
>
> I agree that there can be different types of tree.  I have to think
> about this and discuss with my co-author.
>

We can discuss off line then get back to the wg- we can try to cover this 
in our ietf100 slot.

>
>> - Should we use 'sibling nodes' instead of 'peer nodes'? I think
>>   the term 'sibling' is used in RFC 7950.
>
> Yes.
>
Wfm.

>> - Are the empty lines mandatory or can empty lines added as one sees
>>   fit? In particular, is there an empty line after the module: line?
>>   Is there an empty line before each section of different top-level
>>   symbols? Does the order of top-level symbols matter? Do we really
>>   want to specify these details? Well, for indentation, things are
>>   pretty specific so I wonder what the general strategy is here.
>
> For indentation, spaces a specified b/c they matter (ok, we *could*
> specify some more flexible indentation rules).  Blank line do not
> matter.  Do you think we should say something about this?
>
>> - There was already some discussion about having a way to not always
>>   expand groupings by showing uses nodes. I think this makes sense in
>>   certain situations (possible <flags> '-u').
>
> Ok, I also think we should add something like this.
>

No objections.

>> - What are 'data modules'? This term does not appear in schema mount
>>   I think. Perhaps you wanted YANG modules instead?
>
> Yes.
>
>> - s/realted/related/
>
> Fixed.
>
Thanks.

>> - I think Section 4.1 is not about representing _instance_ data
>>   trees. It is describing how a schema mounted schema looks like - and
>>   I think this is OK. I think this document should not specify
>>   instance tree formats. So change the title of section 4.1 or simply
>>   delete the subsection title entirely.
>
> I agree.  How about "Representation of Mounted Data Trees"?
>

Wfm.

>> - If a schema mount point is used for a readonly mount, then I
>>   understand that only the toplevel changes to ro. Is this useful or
>>   potentially misleading? Was the alternative considered to change all
>>   nodes recursively to ro? I assume they are all effectively ro in
>>   this case.
>
> Hmm, I'll check w/ my co-author.  I think it should be changed
> recursively.
>

I think this is a good improvement.

>> - If the WG wants to include tree diagram usage guidelines in this
>>   document, then I think we should (if we still manage) take tree
>>   diagram related text out of 6087bis before it is cast into
>>   stone. Changes to 6087bis would be:
>>
>>   - Change the subsubstitle "2.5.1.  YANG Tree Diagrams" to "2.6.
>>     YANG Tree Diagrams" (since the definition is in an external
>>     document, I think this should not be nested in 2.5 anymore).
>>
>>   - Remove section 3.4.
>>
>>   - Remove this from section 8 (which is not quite correct anymore
>>     anyway since the definition moved to a separate document).
>>
>>        o  Added YANG tree diagram definition and guideline
>>
>>   Since two are bug fixes anyway (I think), I think it makes sense to
>>   get 6087bis fixed so that the tree diagram usage text is in one
>>   place.
>
> I have no strong opinion, but I think I prefer to have the guidelines
> for tree diagrams in the tree diagram draft.  Maybe 6087 can point to
> this document.
>

I agree.

Thanks,
Lou
Co-author
>
> /martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>