FYI - just slapped together and published: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-00
Lou (as contributor) PS I'm happy with the definition being in 6780bis or in a standalone doc (as above), but really think we as a WG need to decide ASAP so as not to hold up 6780bis any further... On 3/13/2017 2:20 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Would it make sense to update 6087bis section 4.4 to reference this new > pyang option for generated tree diagrams? > > Thanks, > Rob > > > On 11/03/2017 21:49, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Juergen, >>> >>> On 3/8/17, 2:34 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" >>> <[email protected] on behalf of >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:56:20PM +0000, 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. >>> I frequently have to manually edit the pyang-generated trees to get them >>> to fit in the xml2rfc output. Is there a work around for this that I don¹t >>> know about? >> In the latest pyang, I have added --tree-line-length. Use: >> >> pyang -f -tree --tree-line-length 69 ... >> >> to fit RFCs. >> >> >> /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 > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
