Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19/09/2017 14:28, Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> > On 9/19/2017 7:29 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Martin,
> >>>
> >>> Speaking as a contributor:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/15/2017 7:40 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>>> Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>> On 15/09/2017 11:21, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>>>>> Andy Bierman píše v Čt 14. 09. 2017 v 08:43 -0700:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to
> >>>>>>> remember.
> >>>>>>> The current format gets very cluttered and there are too many little
> >>>>>>> symbols
> >>>>>>> to remember them all.
> >>>>>> I agree.
> >>>> Me too.  The current draft adds three new magic symbols: "mp" "@" and
> >>>> "/".
> >>>>
> >>>> "mp" is for a mount point, and it can be generated directly from the
> >>>> YANG modules.
> >>>>
> >>>> Directly under a "mp", "/" and "@" are used to indicate that a node is
> >>>> mounted
> >>>> or available through a parent reference, respectively.
> >>>>
> >>>> I actually question the usability of "/" and "@".
> >>> I agree that / and @ are something new, and enabled by schema mount.
> >>> There have been repeated comments in the RTG WG that there needs to be
> >>> some way for vendors to convey what they have implemented with Schema
> >>> mount
> >> If that's the requirement, using the tree diagram is probably not the
> >> best way.  The tree diagram is intended to provide an overview of a
> >> given (set of) YANG module(s).
> >>
> >> A perhaps better way to convey the information is to create a file
> >> with an instantiated /schema-mounts tree.
> > using what syntax?  JSON and XML really isn't that easy for the
> > (human)
> > reader to parse.
> Perhaps there needs to be multiple versions of the generated tree
> output?
> 
> 1) A normative tree diagram that shows the structure of the model.
> 2) A subsequent example that demonstrates what it looks like with the
> schema mounted modules.  Within the confines of a text document, the
> tree format still seems like a reasonable way to illustrate this, and
> I would say it is preferable to the verbosity of JSON or XML.
> 
> I note that RFC 8022 includes an overview tree model in section 4 with
> some branches pruned, and then the complete representation in an
> appendix, which seems like a pragmatic approach.

Sure, but the question is about what special symbols we define.  Do we
need the extra symbols "/" and "@", and do we agree on what they mean?


/martin