On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:36:56PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > - 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?
I would hope that nobody ever comes up with the idea of writing programs to parse tree diagrams, hence I am fine with a rather liberal definition (and I also do not care about the exact number of spaces but I if it helps to describe the indentation rules then OK). > > - 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"? Isn't is a mounted schema tree? > > - 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. RFC 6087bis would still point to the tree diagram if you apply the edits above but it would no do anything more than that. /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
