On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 06:00:50AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > Juergen, > > Keep in mind this is guidance, so autos may include a long tree even if the > text says don't. So what do you want them to do if they decide they really > want a many page tree? leave the long tree in the body??? >
What I am saying is that the value of the diagram does not change if I move it around. If a plain fully expanded tree dump is not useful anymore for the reader to get an overview, then other content must be produced to provide an overview. And perhaps the plain tree dump is then not even needed anymore to be present in the document if there is other good overview material. We should encourage authors to split large diagrams into manageable pieces. Sometimes suppressing lots of statistics counters helps, sometimes showing which groupings are used instead of their expansion helps. Sometimes it helps to separate major branches of a tree and to discuss them separately. We should encourage authors to do these things. Perhaps we need to state clearly that it is not necessary to include a plain fully expanded tree diagram. In the case of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-12.txt, the fully expanded tree diagram (36 pages) is simply in no good relation with the size of the definitions (47 pages). And the authors of this document do the right thing, they provide overview diagrams that leave out lots of details and that are comprehensible. So is it valuable to keep the full dump in the document? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
