On 9/19/2017 9:55 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > On 19/09/2017 14:47, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 19/09/2017 14:28, Lou Berger wrote: >>>> On 9/19/2017 7:29 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>>>> Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Martin, >>>>>> >>>>>> Speaking as a contributor: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/15/2017 7:40 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>>>>>> Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 15/09/2017 11:21, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>>>>>>> Andy Bierman píše v Čt 14. 09. 2017 v 08:43 -0700: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to >>>>>>>>>> remember. >>>>>>>>>> The current format gets very cluttered and there are too many little >>>>>>>>>> symbols >>>>>>>>>> to remember them all. >>>>>>>>> I agree. >>>>>>> Me too. The current draft adds three new magic symbols: "mp" "@" and >>>>>>> "/". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "mp" is for a mount point, and it can be generated directly from the >>>>>>> YANG modules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Directly under a "mp", "/" and "@" are used to indicate that a node is >>>>>>> mounted >>>>>>> or available through a parent reference, respectively. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I actually question the usability of "/" and "@". >>>>>> I agree that / and @ are something new, and enabled by schema mount. >>>>>> There have been repeated comments in the RTG WG that there needs to be >>>>>> some way for vendors to convey what they have implemented with Schema >>>>>> mount >>>>> If that's the requirement, using the tree diagram is probably not the >>>>> best way. The tree diagram is intended to provide an overview of a >>>>> given (set of) YANG module(s). >>>>> >>>>> A perhaps better way to convey the information is to create a file >>>>> with an instantiated /schema-mounts tree. >>>> using what syntax? JSON and XML really isn't that easy for the >>>> (human) >>>> reader to parse. >>> Perhaps there needs to be multiple versions of the generated tree >>> output? >>> >>> 1) A normative tree diagram that shows the structure of the model. >>> 2) A subsequent example that demonstrates what it looks like with the >>> schema mounted modules. Within the confines of a text document, the >>> tree format still seems like a reasonable way to illustrate this, and >>> I would say it is preferable to the verbosity of JSON or XML. >>> >>> I note that RFC 8022 includes an overview tree model in section 4 with >>> some branches pruned, and then the complete representation in an >>> appendix, which seems like a pragmatic approach. >> Sure, but the question is about what special symbols we define. Do we >> need the extra symbols "/" and "@", and do we agree on what they mean? > If we agree that tree style output is OK to illustrate the use of schema > mount, then I think that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams could > define them, but indicate that they are only used to illustrate how > schema mount is used, and would not be seen in a regular YANG tree > diagram illustrating the structure of a YANG module.
This seems like a reasonable compromise to me, and not a major change to the draft. Martin, what do you think? Lou > The alternative > might be that the RFCs that uses them defines what '/' and '@' mean for > that specific example. > > As for what the precise definition of '/' and '@' should be, I'm not > sure. I think that you and Lou have a better handle on that ;-) > > Thanks, > Rob > > >> >> /martin > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
