Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

[Kent Watsen]

> I think we can allow both and leave it to the document author. Either
> the author uses a well known tree format and refers to its definition
> or the author uses a not yet well known tree format and then it has
> to be defined inline:

Nice compromise, but even then it would be helpful if a draft that wants
to use some custom-annotations do so on top of a standard tree-diagram.
So, for instance, the draft might say something like:

  Tree diagrams used in this draft use notation described in
  [RFCXXXX] with the following additional annotations:

     @ - means ...
     # - means ...
     etc.

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?

K.


_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod