Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 08 March 2017 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 62506129401 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:05:12 -0800 (PST)
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] 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 KKgt661WJuoI for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:05:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from newdragon.webhostserver.biz (newdragon.webhostserver.biz [69.25.136.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8A351294B9 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:05:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [::1] (port=56996) by newdragon.webhostserver.biz with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.86_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1cld9J-0002uD-Ra; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 18:05:09 +0300
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
References: <EE43C03C-4660-4492-B40A-BAA17FD99A39@juniper.net> <20170303170233.GB3345@elstar.local> <20170307.185637.67261051570590747.mbj@tail-f.com>
Message-ID: <82703e36-26f9-d459-c36a-c274861c5386@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:05:07 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170307.185637.67261051570590747.mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - newdragon.webhostserver.biz
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: newdragon.webhostserver.biz: authenticated_id: lberger@blabn.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: newdragon.webhostserver.biz: lberger@blabn.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/bhsacN-2SEr7ujiYsD1qxU9Vfiw>
Cc: 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 15:05:12 -0000

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.

Lou

>
>
> /martin
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod