IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Fri, 03 March 2017 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.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 4902B1289C4 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:41:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com
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 7Zf6OOeDn_cC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:41:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02on0123.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.37.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F04C61289B0 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:41:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Cl52z9iUKGbx5h32PGqFqbEoYBBAZcw5R33rPa2fmoQ=; b=bbQBiIcyahqkQNrz4/pNJwJ0UH4y8Tvh5SSoo8duzcPyXdHXfr39kLAiUniX/s9HDwl+e3XiJRtW9uVv6aqUpHNVIOELSbpJB6Dga4KkMzlzpTBMvLdxw3Fx+owdIKJSAU6K7IjTN/staZMVkXahPognZTAnu5Bk2lqSkBIwtDk=
Received: from BN3PR0501MB1442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.117.151) by BN3PR0501MB1443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.117.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.947.2; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:41:44 +0000
Received: from BN3PR0501MB1442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.117.151]) by BN3PR0501MB1442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.117.151]) with mapi id 15.01.0947.015; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:41:44 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: stable reference for tree diagram notation
Thread-Index: AQHSlD0Kf+J5u9nqmEehA2iSQMJSUQ==
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 16:41:44 +0000
Message-ID: <EE43C03C-4660-4492-B40A-BAA17FD99A39@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 373a5ba0-6464-408b-e14b-08d462542d60
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081); SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1443;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0501MB1443; 7:WDlHMaNaomA4kRZ7bvdoFWSTm1o68qCQ/sCTinSw2rsFP6ZcfDQpr+V8w+xsfq2vudtP7u5Sn1rcjjUPJiZvv0PvXRcEM9ckO91RTH/44jpz9jRZQWhnGfG4i90U8Oln70hKRrNx9B4NeKrLUGagb/XBC8FJ8Ld7t/fZfSjMHBlhxMGt2o1hd7+CF3nY8HlLM14NCf9VKCdZ8+EUlpCLn5pO046nsOWp1Vyz2YnL24Up3ZrF3+MjMv370HQj3fC54mndPcWrCTRQPG+t8MJ9wa1Y/wjAVWKg8B6OgWK8YH9kopOeLiX8qAM86D+I9+3KLU3eB1E7SXRx/t01/Ok5Qw==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR0501MB1443D9DE158254C155E7A852A52B0@BN3PR0501MB1443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(20161123558025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1443; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1443;
x-forefront-prvs: 0235CBE7D0
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(39410400002)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39850400002)(2900100001)(36756003)(1730700003)(86362001)(66066001)(3660700001)(106116001)(8676002)(3280700002)(8936002)(2501003)(122556002)(81166006)(3846002)(6116002)(4001350100001)(102836003)(53936002)(54356999)(2351001)(305945005)(33656002)(50986999)(6512007)(92566002)(99286003)(77096006)(450100001)(189998001)(2906002)(7736002)(6916009)(83716003)(6436002)(38730400002)(25786008)(110136004)(5640700003)(83506001)(5660300001)(6486002)(82746002)(6506006)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1443; H:BN3PR0501MB1442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <CFA259A86BC0E84FB6DBA514D32AC635@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Mar 2017 16:41:44.2775 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0501MB1443
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/jKZXCySeTqu_jQzjroIejD8id_w>
Subject: [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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 16:41:49 -0000

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?

Thanks,
Kent

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email