Martin, Juergen,
On March 7, 2017 8:08:26 PM Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 see that as the question at all - the issue for me is needing to parse each document to see if and how it differs from the norm and then figuring out if the differences are (a) a bug, (b) limited to the specific document, (c) something that is a basic change that should impact tools (i.e., pyang) and other documents. > > I don't think so. For example, it was recently suggested that a > notion for "mount-points" should be defined. > Yes, and it is our (Martin, Lada and my) conversation in that context that prompted this discussion. > I don't think this is a big problem. Again, I do see this as an issue worth solving and am appreciative that 6087bis is available to easily provide a stable reference until such time as an update/replacement is needed. Lou > > > /martin > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
