I do have a question re: the rationale that is given in the document: " Today's Common practice is include the definition of the syntax used to represent a YANG module in every document that provides a tree diagram. This practice has several disadvantages and the purpose of the document is to provide a single location for this definition. "
I am not sure how much simplification this will really bring - is the boilerplate paragraph we find in drafts with YANG tree diagrams today really that a big problem, specifically while the snippet is still small enough (and could arguably even be generated by pyang itself, if extended accordingly, for easy pasting into drafts)? While having a common and consistent definition in a central location is appreciated, one implication as the tree notation evolves will be that documents may now have to be specific as to which notation revision is used (as the notation might be updated, revisions might need to be maintained, although it is understood that churn will be kept to a minimum). --- Alex -----Original Message----- From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 4:23 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams All, This is start of a two-week poll on making the following draft a NETMOD working group document: draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. Thank you, NETMOD WG Chairs _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
