Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02.txt size

Lou Berger <> Fri, 27 October 2017 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A0A13F46A for <>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 04:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BWlDIHg9IRH5 for <>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 04:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 522C013B408 for <>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 04:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CMOut01 (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1467F1E08F6 for <>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 05:04:32 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ([]) by CMOut01 with id Sb4U1w00H2SSUrH01b4XS8; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 05:04:32 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=K4VSJ2eI c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=02M-m0pO-4AA:10 a=pRk_hpag8t209Mc66IYA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=14c5UpmLWbabzXazPFHFrMYJOe7vD4L0+Tcffa9QHmw=; b=das9Y2cG4SA7IXsCrzsP9PepG4 YOUQ7ExPkH45edy2F4IDSL8iUmXeYRLqpnsNhGx3uk1G9frVtSG7IKHtskStVvyU0nco+CB5Gl0WA mDWs5uMM0DD3WDXa+4JQyjhl8;
Received: from ([]:46004 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <>) id 1e82RA-000X8m-2d; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 05:04:28 -0600
To: "t.petch" <>,
References: <> <> <010301d34e7b$1d5303c0$> <> <20171026221736.cl3kpzo2i7zaa4qh@elstar.local> <> <20171026234123.pt65l6ctgmx2hd55@elstar.local> <> <20171027105159.up6ec5xwbcy75hcr@elstar.local>
From: Lou Berger <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 07:04:24 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171027105159.up6ec5xwbcy75hcr@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 -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Exim-ID: 1e82RA-000X8m-2d
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) []:46004
X-Email-Count: 2
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02.txt size
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:04:34 -0000

On 10/27/2017 6:51 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 06:00:50AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Juergen,
>> Keep in mind this is guidance, so autos may include a long tree even if the
>> text says don't.  So what do you want them to do if they decide they really
>> want a many page tree? leave the long tree in the body???
> What I am saying is that the value of the diagram does not change if I
> move it around. If a plain fully expanded tree dump is not useful
> anymore for the reader to get an overview, then other content must be
> produced to provide an overview.  And perhaps the plain tree dump is
> then not even needed anymore to be present in the document if there is
> other good overview material.
I completely agree.

> We should encourage authors to split large diagrams into manageable
> pieces. Sometimes suppressing lots of statistics counters helps,
> sometimes showing which groupings are used instead of their expansion
> helps. Sometimes it helps to separate major branches of a tree and to
> discuss them separately. We should encourage authors to do these
> things. 

I agree with this too, and this was the goal of the current text.
> Perhaps we need to state clearly that it is not necessary to
> include a plain fully expanded tree diagram.
Please propose text for the draft!

> In the case of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-12.txt, the fully expanded
> tree diagram (36 pages) is simply in no good relation with the size of
> the definitions (47 pages). And the authors of this document do the
> right thing, they provide overview diagrams that leave out lots of
> details and that are comprehensible. So is it valuable to keep the
> full dump in the document?
I personally don't think so, and questioned its usefulness.  I also
suggested moving to an appendix if they really wanted to keep it.  For
whatever reason they decided they wanted to keep it which is, of course,
within their purview.

So, I think the question for us is: what, beyond the change you suggest
above, add to the tree draft to cover cases where authors really want to
include such long trees?

> /js