Hi,
I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02 and here are
my comments (in document order).
- I am not sure this is correct:
YANG Tree Diagrams were first published in [RFC7223]. Such diagrams
I think NACM (RFC 6536) already has a tree diagram. This makes for a
difference of ~2 years. Note sure this matter much however.
- Do we have to speak more specifically about 'schema tree diagrams'?
Note that there can be many more 'tree' diagrams, like instance tree
diagrams, identity derivation diagrams, type derivation diagrams,
import relationship diagrams, ... and perhaps it makes sense to
allow for other diagrams to be defined over time.
- Should we use 'sibling nodes' instead of 'peer nodes'? I think
the term 'sibling' is used in RFC 7950.
- Are the empty lines mandatory or can empty lines added as one sees
fit? In particular, is there an empty line after the module: line?
Is there an empty line before each section of different top-level
symbols? Does the order of top-level symbols matter? Do we really
want to specify these details? Well, for indentation, things are
pretty specific so I wonder what the general strategy is here.
- There was already some discussion about having a way to not always
expand groupings by showing uses nodes. I think this makes sense in
certain situations (possible <flags> '-u').
- What are 'data modules'? This term does not appear in schema mount
I think. Perhaps you wanted YANG modules instead?
- s/realted/related/
- I think Section 4.1 is not about representing _instance_ data
trees. It is describing how a schema mounted schema looks like - and
I think this is OK. I think this document should not specify
instance tree formats. So change the title of section 4.1 or simply
delete the subsection title entirely.
- If a schema mount point is used for a readonly mount, then I
understand that only the toplevel changes to ro. Is this useful or
potentially misleading? Was the alternative considered to change all
nodes recursively to ro? I assume they are all effectively ro in
this case.
- If the WG wants to include tree diagram usage guidelines in this
document, then I think we should (if we still manage) take tree
diagram related text out of 6087bis before it is cast into
stone. Changes to 6087bis would be:
- Change the subsubstitle "2.5.1. YANG Tree Diagrams" to "2.6.
YANG Tree Diagrams" (since the definition is in an external
document, I think this should not be nested in 2.5 anymore).
- Remove section 3.4.
- Remove this from section 8 (which is not quite correct anymore
anyway since the definition moved to a separate document).
o Added YANG tree diagram definition and guideline
Since two are bug fixes anyway (I think), I think it makes sense to
get 6087bis fixed so that the tree diagram usage text is in one
place.
/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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
