Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> 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