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: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
