Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

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. If so, someone should write an I-D and then the format should in
my opinion become a separate RFC that can be referenced. (I would not
roll this into RFC 6087 so that the tree format can be revised without
opening all of RFC 6087.) Others have argued in the past that the
replication is not such a big deal and the replication has the
advantage that people who do not read YANG everyday have an
explanation right in place without having to lookup another RFC.

For me personally, this is a low low priority item but if someone has
spare cycles to spend, this is a good target. Such an RFC will get
tons of references and you become famous. Oh, now I get interested...

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>