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

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Fri, 15 September 2017 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@cisco.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 B17AF132396 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 06:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 uD70moeuctCv for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 06:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78C4612421A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 06:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=918; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505483405; x=1506693005; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=x/eyxUqmPqY1ZxajzgqXjdr2SYXq7IdT0ym8MH9B/iY=; b=FlKfndHUqN8hQj0iAsh1d9kh6Ogl5Hz6d4wtfujd3RybBd8FvVxZnmPb BLDTbi559rOOk+xele4iVCED0ut9RuHDWXYu3e8zcb/1JXpACYHclXYJo 5j21AlugKRhdSnp+qGUpK8D0itEjcDJ0Bz6kCpsz9vy1WUNCwLZ3MwCmM 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,397,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="3968425"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Sep 2017 13:50:04 +0000
Received: from [10.118.87.94] (rtp-jclarke-nitro13.cisco.com [10.118.87.94]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8FDo4gB009447; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:50:04 GMT
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, andy@yumaworks.com, netmod@ietf.org
References: <9d84d068-29ba-8e89-394f-b7f6a5272adc@cisco.com> <CABCOCHQZ4zJ3p_4oB1Pu=1H60btzrccqTx7rUtsRsF0reXgrYw@mail.gmail.com> <20170914.195037.593298963545596882.mbj@tail-f.com> <5721c564-48e9-299e-5ada-b272b00716cf@cisco.com> <748ca881-2180-3096-750d-44d28aa1b7ce@cisco.com> <20170915132128.diib4wxp2vg6yqi4@elstar.local>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <694e1d93-5cf8-2aca-a1a8-8df0e1d0aa15@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:50:04 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170915132128.diib4wxp2vg6yqi4@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/SEMqyQ7yE4QK7du2GoIlg7H6Xek>
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:50:07 -0000

On 9/15/17 09:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
> 
>> Now, if you are already a YANG expert, I guess you don't use the
>> tree output much.
> 
> I think this has nothing to do with YANG experience. The intention of
> the tree format was to provide a concise overview of the structure of
> the schema tree. If we start to include type specifics that can get
> very detailed, the diagrams loose their value.

I agree that clutter is bad.  I had the same reservation, but I am also
working with models and sharing information with people where a tree
that has a _bit_ more information would be useful.

I agree that showing this by default will be messy in some cases.  And
maybe this has moved to a question more for you, Martin, in pyang's
GitHub channel.  But if this output were put behind an option, would you
entertain a PR?

Joe