Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 08 March 2017 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.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 9D0BC12963E for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 08:40:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.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 FTduI5hAwT0d for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 08:40:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 589D1129609 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 08:40:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:78b6:acea:91b3:9c19] (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:78b6:acea:91b3:9c19]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9844561330; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:40:12 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1488991212; bh=oqv7oI3av4FzEEmTfTJn0XmqKfHYMsCFhsvaTDiIS0g=; h=From:Date:To; b=jFNdkQrlakkgljHVnOrYcBOHgKWdU2zDNKumeQ2GZ4NQtQftAAdofWK7rq9o8nlvO pD6KNjG3P4Xg4S1rilRpdNlA4/pFcBGD32FOrKnTuRrWwgum8Jy+d82FuqVn+xIA49 YUSpx0MnSzdSAF4ejYAAdOUMgcMWwALKnL5Uy894=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <82703e36-26f9-d459-c36a-c274861c5386@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:40:11 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <84583EEA-C7FE-4BB0-8D16-744E3768AB5C@nic.cz>
References: <EE43C03C-4660-4492-B40A-BAA17FD99A39@juniper.net> <20170303170233.GB3345@elstar.local> <20170307.185637.67261051570590747.mbj@tail-f.com> <82703e36-26f9-d459-c36a-c274861c5386@labn.net>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/fZBkOLnPjhBRZlKTuOJeU0LQxUw>
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 16:40:16 -0000

> 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