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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 19 September 2017 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
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 D4DE3134326 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 06:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wEH8VeOp3yLs for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 06:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC06C134322 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 06:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.41]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B78C91AE0455; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:48:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:47:28 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20170919.154728.285206235172744617.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: rwilton@cisco.com
Cc: lberger@labn.net, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <3734864d-9b27-7f61-c638-fd7c656c3692@cisco.com>
References: <20170919.132947.358857445863848356.mbj@tail-f.com> <990b8722-7a48-46ce-3f5d-96bc5cb66075@labn.net> <3734864d-9b27-7f61-c638-fd7c656c3692@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Mux-vYm8G6pFYhHUHzCglPdS2TQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output
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: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:49:02 -0000

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19/09/2017 14:28, Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> > On 9/19/2017 7:29 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> >>> Martin,
> >>>
> >>> Speaking as a contributor:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/15/2017 7:40 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>>> Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> 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