Joe Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/15/17 09:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote: > > > >> Now, if you are already a YANG expert, I guess you don't use the > >> tree output much. > > > > I think this has nothing to do with YANG experience. The intention of > > the tree format was to provide a concise overview of the structure of > > the schema tree. If we start to include type specifics that can get > > very detailed, the diagrams loose their value. > > I agree that clutter is bad. I had the same reservation, but I am also > working with models and sharing information with people where a tree > that has a _bit_ more information would be useful. > > I agree that showing this by default will be messy in some cases. And > maybe this has moved to a question more for you, Martin, in pyang's > GitHub channel. But if this output were put behind an option, would you > entertain a PR?
Right, there are two issues here, what do we specify in the draft and what extensions will tools do. It seems we agree that we shouldn't put this into the specification. (as for pyang, I'll send you a private email) /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
