Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

[Vladimir Vassilev <[e-mail]>]

On 01/15/2018 09:41 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have reviewed and implemented (apart from schema mount specific 
> functionality) draft-ietfetf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-04 and found 
> the following issues:
>
> ==sec 2.6.  Node Representation==
>
> 1. To correctly reflect the current pyang output one needs to add '--' 
> between <status> and <flags>.
> OLD:
>     <status> <flags> <name> <opts> <type> <if-features>
> NEW:
>     <status>--<flags> <name> <opts> <type> <if-features>
>
> There is also undocumented alignment space count function before 
> <type> that pyang uses to align the <type> fields of child data leafs 
> with common ancestor. If this is specified in the draft the tree 
> output can be deterministic and for me this is an advantage. This is 
> currently one of the few underspecified pieces of the tree format so I 
> had to check pyang implementation in oder to generate same alignment 
> space counts and binary identical tree output results.
>
>
> 2. It is unclear which <flags> option should be used for rpc and 
> action input/output and child nodes and the notification child nodes. 
> pyang uses '-w' for input and input/* and 'ro' for output and output/*:
>
>     module: ietf-netconf-partial-lock
>       rpcs:
>         +---x partial-lock
>         |  +---w input
>         |  |  +---w select*   string
>     ...
>
> pyang also uses '--' as <flags> for augmentation data nodes for 
> actions input.
>
>     ...
>       augment /rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/rt:input:
>         +---- destination-address?   inet:ipv4-address
>     ...
>
>
> 3. pyang is prefixing choice node names with the parent <flags> e.g. 
> +--ro (next-hop-options) while case nodes are not prefixed. I guess 
> this is a bug in pyang since it is not specified in the draft but 
> choice nodes prefixed with parent <flags> are  also present in the sec 
> 4 and 4.1 examples?
Ignore 3. choice had a config substatement which explains the presence 
of <flags>.
>
> 4. This bit I found confusing. I propose this change to unambiguously 
> describe the current pyang format.
>
> OLD:
>          *  for a leaf-list or list
>          [<keys>] for a list's keys
> NEW:
>          *  for a leaf-list or list without keys
>          * [<keys>] for a list with keys
>
> Vladimir
>
> On 01/01/2018 11:01 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> We hope  the new year is a time to make great progess on outstanding
>> documents before preparation for the  London IETF begins in earnest.
>>
>> This starts a two-week working group last call on:
>>
>>   YANG Tree Diagrams
>> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams/
>>
>> Please send email to the list indicating your support or concerns.
>>
>> We are particularly interested in statements of the form:
>>
>>    * I have reviewed this draft and found no issues.
>>    * I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues: ...
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> NETMOD WG Chairs
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod