Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 08 March 2017 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 85D311294C0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:07:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 7fCOTPc_saLr for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:07:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13A4129470 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:07:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [50.225.114.198]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE1001AE0351; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 01:58:25 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:56:37 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20170307.185637.67261051570590747.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170303170233.GB3345@elstar.local>
References: <EE43C03C-4660-4492-B40A-BAA17FD99A39@juniper.net> <20170303170233.GB3345@elstar.local>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.3 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/eOn4K7rcuth04A_5Uhl9AXqlH_U>
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 01:07:50 -0000

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 think so.  For example, it was recently suggested that a
notion for "mount-points" should be defined.

I don't think this is a big problem.


/martin