Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I don't think so. For example, it was recently suggested that a notion for "mount-points" should be defined. I don't think this is a big problem. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
