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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

See below.


On October 30, 2017 10:39:31 AM Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thank you for this review!  Comments inline.
>
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>