Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

> On 8 Mar 2017, at 16:05, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.

If the format itself isn't stable, how can 6087bis (after it becomes an RFC) provide a stable reference?

I agree with Juergen and Martin and don't mind having the section about tree symbols in each document that needs it.

Lada

> 
> Lou
> 
>> 
>> 
>> /martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67