Re: [netmod] ?==?utf-8?q? YANG tree diagram uses

Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz> Mon, 05 February 2018 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
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 6802612D7EA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 05:42:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=cesnet.cz
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 qOIUhXxnDpvY for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 05:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kalendar.cesnet.cz (kalendar.cesnet.cz [IPv6:2001:718:1:1f:50:56ff:feee:34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D872512D7E9 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 05:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by kalendar.cesnet.cz (Postfix, from userid 999) id 08C7B604DB; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:42:25 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cesnet.cz; s=kalendar; t=1517838145; bh=+5STxaOCsN5JgQ0XEWOuOObM1hC+m4UEbCH2l4ZMcis=; h=In-Reply-To:From:Date:Cc:To:Subject; b=XrfXIRJ9sM90ICd21XxP2vyeCBs2+1aBzObeZwDYlughqNOBSnyYJ6phBKOOIr6Lx Ibs8RiJpWLtgpzfwg71tKhqqG1k2wle3yr7QoSTZv7QZeVUc+777rneMEsctR4Ee4u 7qv7HbW9Pe4mMUmdS8awAvZX9VeT5OG+iFfc/hFY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <b83b8e9b-f371-04f6-b47a-563d28e64d02@cisco.com>
From: Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
X-Forward: 2001:67c:1220:80c:f5:8e35:ef0e:146c
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 14:42:25 +0100
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7231-5a785f80-79-79ec2a00@42055075>
User-Agent: SOGoMail 2.3.23
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ZZ8uM1C4DqXaeyrXDsB9T8yCcZY>
Subject: Re: [netmod] ?==?utf-8?q? YANG tree diagram uses
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: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:42:31 -0000

Hi Benoit,
the way I understand it is that the draft tries to mention only the core Tree Diagram characteristics and formatting leaving the details implementation-specific. I was simply asking for another opinion on how to handle an implementation detail, I think the draft fulfils the mentioned purpose just fine.

Regards,
Michal

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 10:24 CET, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote: 
 
> Martin, Michal,
> 
> Do we need any clarification in the draft?
> 
> Regards, B.
> > Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> we have encountered some problem while implementing a feature from
> >> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05, specifically not resolving
> >> groupings and printing uses names instead (Section 2.2).
> >>
> >> We have 2 example models, A and B. A defines a container and a
> >> grouping. B defines an augment that adds uses into the container from
> >> A and resolves to the grouping from model A.
> >>
> >> grouping A:g;
> >> A:c {
> >>    B:uses A:g;
> >> }
> >>
> >> Now, if printing model A with the augment not resolving uses we
> >> currently print
> >>
> >> +--rw c
> >>     +---u B:A:g;
> > pyang prints this as well, but it is more "by accident".   It looks
> > quite odd.
> >
> > It wouldn't be correct to write
> >
> >      +---u B:g;
> >
> > since 'g' isn't defined in B.
> >     
> > OTOH,
> >
> >      +---u A:g;
> >
> > is correct in the sense that "A:g" is the "name of the grouping", and
> > that is what the current document says should be printed.  Granted,
> > this doesn't show the whole picture, but maybe this is good enough.
> >
> > It might be wise to not print a grouping like this in order to avoid
> > confusion.
> >
> >
> > /martin
> >
> >
> >> since the uses is foreign. We could not decide what the "correct"
> >> output should be and it is likely left to various interpretations but
> >> we were wondering what some of you think. Should it perhaps be only
> >> "B:g" since the grouping becomes local? But what if the grouping would
> >> be from a third model, are 2 prefixes okay? Thanks for your opinions.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Michal
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> > .
> >
>