Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 08/03/2017 20:57, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
>>> This way, reader can focus more quickly on the diffs, but also this
>>> likely mimics what happened in reality (start with `pyang -f tree`
>>> and then manually edit from there).  What do you think?
>>>
>> Manually edited tree diagrams? I hope not. Perhaps we should have text
>> saying that tree diagrams are expected to be generated by tools and
>> that they are expected to be consistent with the model (and hence they
>> need to be updated with every change, hence usage of tools is a damn
>> good idea).
>>
>> [I thought this is obvious but perhaps this is not.]
>
> Right, but what happens when the draft precedes the tool being
> updated (e.g., schema-mount)?
Or the output has been generated by someone without the latest revision 
of the tool installed (which has happened to me previously).

>    It's a rare case and you already
> said authors can address it on a case-by-case basis, so I think
> we're covered either way.
Having the key inline in the documents is generally slightly more 
convenient for readers, but not at the expense of it being a hassle 
during review, or having people define custom formats.

So, I support the idea of putting the table key into its own draft. Not 
6087bis because we need it to be quick/easy to update when required.

Rob

>
> K.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> .
>