Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> wrote:
> +1 to (2) as preference, followed by (1).  I don't think (3) is needed
> here.  The purpose is to make this human-readable and provide readers
> a good sense of the overall structure.  The authoritative
> specification is still the .yang itself.  Providing some guidance for
> how to represent the tree is good but let's not over-engineer this; I
> believe retaining some flexibility is good.

The last sentence summarizes my personal view.  I prefer (1), followed
by (2).

/martin

> --- Alex 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> ...
> > > Does anyone else have an opinion on this?  I can see three
> > > alternatives:
> > >
> > >    1) allow any number of addtional spaces
> > >    2) allow any number of addtional spaces + define a suggested
> > >       alignment algorithm
> > >    3) mandate the alignment algorithm
> > 
> > Definition of symbols should be precise/consistent, so that readers
> > can
> > consistently interpret tree diagrams.
> > 
> > I think that flexibility in layout should be OK, but the draft should
> > provide
> > guideline to ensure the output is readable, and likely to be broadly
> > consistent
> > (since consistency aids readability).
> > 
> > If the IETF data modeling group is trying to specify text output
> > precisely
> > enough that it can be screen scraped then we may want to consider
> > whether
> > we are focusing on the right solution ;-)
> > 
> > In summary, (2) is my preference, followed by (1), followed by (3).
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > /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