Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 08 March 2017 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 9B956129440 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:15:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 RIb8s6-Abmsq for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:15:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CF9612940D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:15:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id t189so36421676wmt.1 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 09:15:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HHaUZuDvox9T949gKZueX0RdjN3WyhpiPhYpUoL9EME=; b=1PBJMcgzmbcwdeXNqB9omvrZ+BacDGO/9qg7SSW32c1/E73Fcp7FVRjEYxCkxpPeqI 1wJzaRtL/caT1IEiRzxJEbtDcTiCqos3Hn57Y9bkpAI2OzcZyJmbWl2wuSBxM5uskfz7 lR9UWcuvVFH8E32pQkwzzYJDyVFjqxNEb/zTvQNTGjacYEldktBzangNmRs6+2r2+An2 ZH1JoFD7+dBdnbE0sIklpATl0UuXtapGPstb0NJSsc6zjzcEmY0N8Fh+w6eZ4zizUR9g 2EWv1sRqmn/jL/jytZYXGZU/aleXS8JTQakrmpbzUQ77GLYGfHX1zL/rIpw4tmoM0rRM RAnw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HHaUZuDvox9T949gKZueX0RdjN3WyhpiPhYpUoL9EME=; b=txqCWEUE52NXQIAyQRTRUilT34WF7E4eJ/mxJd8jIbcKOxCEDuGFiKjNT8Bw7raV2f +hPPsh0PMrICD2Xa9j5RaVXu2IQW+sxX39dj3atOSv6hw8pjIJLUcenKrciQvYyuolk1 WbRqrlML0RV1iuI5InnN/jE2bMkFgFkwcO5ReeCuzfhfU5OBeo7ig6poBcV159+53k1J Nxh9FA3HdSwcqqxUH9vy0bC5bLONFC6zYQfo38nZU8lOfiVzJQuRMjDnZwPTkGOY6Bjf Qsitl9qxtjhQT7wZnhKd9L9FVATHSueDItV+BX+S0OXzO+ADRTq6/DtDaefmrRvyxfh/ Z/LQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n4y5lWm2ommczDbeLtCuDCuvKf+kq0/9T7kVK+lHXhFX/WzOJJsz/5ttsUHJxJmDf0fzGkYp2WV3f2YQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.234.206 with SMTP id g75mr6480039wmi.54.1488993349398; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 09:15:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.165.154 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:15:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <84583EEA-C7FE-4BB0-8D16-744E3768AB5C@nic.cz>
References: <EE43C03C-4660-4492-B40A-BAA17FD99A39@juniper.net> <20170303170233.GB3345@elstar.local> <20170307.185637.67261051570590747.mbj@tail-f.com> <82703e36-26f9-d459-c36a-c274861c5386@labn.net> <84583EEA-C7FE-4BB0-8D16-744E3768AB5C@nic.cz>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:15:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQaEAs039Tim6CWGg0h_cK1rcZo5DBS-Kko8j05UosZwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11472b9eaa1624054a3b47a1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Xt9W5dj9RCQCSmW0C68WNvpc11k>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:15:53 -0000

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

>
> > On 8 Mar 2017, at 16:05, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> >
> > Martin, Juergen,
> >
> >
> > On March 7, 2017 8:08:26 PM Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 04:41:44PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Lou and I were discussing how it seems unnecessary that every draft
> >>>> has the same boilerplate text regarding how to interpret tree diagram
> >>>> notations.  It would be nice if drafts could instead just reference
> >>>> another draft that contains this information.  Does this make sense?
> >>>>
> >>>> Assuming we're interested in having such a reference, we could define
> >>>> a mini-RFC or, perhaps, leverage Section 3 of 6087bis (YANG Tree
> >>>> Diagrams).  Either way, we'd want/need to ensure the information
> >>>> is updated in a timely manner.
> >>>>
> >>>> Two reasons for why we may not want to pursue this are:
> >>>>  1) we can’t update the reference fast enough
> >>>>  2) drafts might add some proprietary annotations
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this worth pursuing at all?
> >>>
> >>> This has been discussed before. The tree format that tools generate
> >>> has evolved a bit over time and the current setup allows to have some
> >>> evolution. The question is whether we have reached a state where the
> >>> evolution has come to standstill and we can nail a common tree format
> >>> down.
> >
> > I don't see that as the question at all - the issue for me is needing to
> > parse each document to see if and how it differs from the norm and then
> > figuring out if the differences are (a) a bug, (b) limited to the
> > specific document, (c) something that is a basic change that should
> > impact tools (i.e., pyang) and other documents.
> >
> >>
> >> I don't think so.  For example, it was recently suggested that a
> >> notion for "mount-points" should be defined.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, and it is our (Martin, Lada and my) conversation in that context
> > that prompted this discussion.
> >
> >> I don't think this is a big problem.
> >
> > Again, I do see this as an issue worth solving and am appreciative that
> > 6087bis is available to easily provide a stable reference until such
> > time as an update/replacement is needed.
>
> If the format itself isn't stable, how can 6087bis (after it becomes an
> RFC) provide a stable reference?
>
> I agree with Juergen and Martin and don't mind having the section about
> tree symbols in each document that needs it.
>
>
The text in question is in section 4.3:

   If YANG tree diagrams are used, then a sub-section explaining the
   YANG tree diagram syntax MUST be present, containing the following
   text:

     A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in
     this document.  *The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is
     defined in [RFCXXXX].*

     -- RFC Editor: Replace XXXX with RFC number and remove note




Given that work on YANG 1.2 is likely to begin just after YANG 1.1 was
published,
it is hard to pretend that this is a stable language.  So I agree this text
should be
replaced with new text that reflects the lack of a stable reference.

Suggested Text:

OLD:

   If YANG tree diagrams are used, then a sub-section explaining the
   YANG tree diagram syntax MUST be present, containing the following
   text:


     A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in
     this document.  The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is
     defined in [RFCXXXX].



NEW:

   If YANG tree diagrams are used, then a sub-section explaining the
   YANG tree diagram syntax MUST be present, explaining the symbols

   in the diagram.  The actual text will depend on the version of

   the YANG tree diagram syntax used in the document.




Lada



Andy


> >
> > Lou
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> /martin
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netmod mailing list
> >> netmod@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>