Hi, Thank you for this review! Comments inline.
Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. I'll fix this. > - 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. I agree that there can be different types of tree. I have to think about this and discuss with my co-author. > - Should we use 'sibling nodes' instead of 'peer nodes'? I think > the term 'sibling' is used in RFC 7950. Yes. > - 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. For indentation, spaces a specified b/c they matter (ok, we *could* specify some more flexible indentation rules). Blank line do not matter. Do you think we should say something about this? > - 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'). Ok, I also think we should add something like this. > - What are 'data modules'? This term does not appear in schema mount > I think. Perhaps you wanted YANG modules instead? Yes. > - s/realted/related/ Fixed. > - 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. I agree. How about "Representation of Mounted Data Trees"? > - 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. Hmm, I'll check w/ my co-author. I think it should be changed recursively. > - 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. I have no strong opinion, but I think I prefer to have the guidelines for tree diagrams in the tree diagram draft. Maybe 6087 can point to this document. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
