Hi Rob, On 1/15/18, 10:07 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Martin, > >All OK with me except where I have further comments/questions inline >below: > >On 15/01/2018 14:39, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the review! Comments inline. >> >> Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Lou, Martin >>> >>> I've done a quick review of draft -04. >>> >>> It looks well written to me. >>> >>> I have a spotted a few minor nits/questions. >>> >>> Section 1: >>> >>> (i) "Such diagrams are commonly used to provided " => "Such diagrams >>> are used to provide"? >> Ok. >> >>> (ii) "This document provides the syntax used in YANG Tree Diagrams." >>> => "This document describes the syntax used in YANG Tree Diagrams", or >>> if not "describes", perhaps "specifies"? >> I changed to "describes". >> >>> (iii) "common practice is include" => "common practice is to include" >> Ok. >> >>> Section 2: >>> (iv) Are the top level data nodes really offset by 4 spaces, or should >>> this be 2 spaces? The example in section 2, and section 4 seem to >>> differ here. The submodule example in Sec 2.1 looks like it is using >>> 2 spaces. >> It should be 4 spaces. I fixed the example in 2.1. >Hum, OK. Is this the right choice? > - It means that the tree is indented 2 spaces further than everything >else (e.g. groupings, augments, etc). > - YANG modules in RFC's already struggle with line length anyway, >hence wouldn't the use of 2 spaces give the model a bit more space. > >I also think that it would be good to check the indent of all the tree >diagram snippets in the doc, it looks like they may be using somewhat >varying levels of indents (between 2 and 6 spaces). I agree - it is already hard to fit the tree diagrams into RFCs. Thanks, Acee > > >> >>> (v) "is prefaces with" => "is prefaced with" >> Ok. >> >>> (vi) Section 2.2, should there be an example of an unexpanded uses >>> statement? I was wondering if this section was under specified? >> I have added: >> >> For example, the following diagram shows the "tls-transport" >>grouping >> from [RFC7407] unexpanded: >> >> +--rw tls >> +---u tls-transport >> >> If the grouping is expanded, it could be printed as: >> >> +--rw tls >> +--rw port? inet:port-number >> +--rw client-fingerprint? x509c2n:tls-fingerprint >> +--rw server-fingerprint? x509c2n:tls-fingerprint >> +--rw server-identity? snmp:admin-string >Yes, looks good. > >> >>> Section 2.6: >>> (vii) "If the node is augmented into the tree from another module, its >>> name is printed as <prefix>:<name>." Does there need to be a >>> clarification that the prefix name used is the one used by the >>> module's import statement? Or does it use the prefix statement from >>> the imported modules instead (I know that these should normally be the >>> same, but this is not guaranteed). >> Since this is used when a node is augmented *into* the main tree, it >> can't be the prefix in import, since the augmenting module is not >> imported from the augmented module. I did: >But the YANG module must import the module that it is augmenting. If a >local import prefix is used in the actual YANG module then it would be >slightly harder to relate the tree output back to local import prefixes >used in the YANG module. > >> >> OLD: >> >> If the node is augmented into the tree from another module, >> its name is printed as <prefix>:<name>. >> >> NEW: >> >> If the node is augmented into the tree from another module, >> its name is printed as <prefix>:<name>, where <prefix> is the >> prefix defined in the module where the node is defined. >This is OK with me, but there is still a potential for a prefix >namespace clash (since prefixes are not guaranteed to be unique). > >An alternative solution would be for the YANG tree diagram to list (at >the beginning or the end of the diagram) the mappings from prefix -> >module name used. This has the bonus that it also explicitly lists the >YANG modules that are being augmented, but conversely, this might end up >just adding unnecessary noise to a diagram that should be short and >simple ... > >A second alternative would be to add some vague text to state that the >prefix to module mapping should be explicitly listed in any cases where >the prefix name alone is not obvious. > >Thanks, >Rob > > >> >>> Section 3.2. >>> (viii) It would be slightly easier to read if there wasn't a linebreak >>> between "--" and "tree-print-groupings", not sure if that is feasible >>> to force this. >> I don't think I can enforce this, but I'll look into it. If nothing >> else, the RFC editor will fix this. >> >> >> /martin >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> Rob >>> >>> On 10/01/2018 16:16, joel jaeggli wrote: >>>> Just a reminder given the date that this was posted. This last call is >>>> expected to complete Monday 1/15/18. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> joel >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/1/18 2:01 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> >>>>> We hope the new year is a time to make great progess on outstanding >>>>> documents before preparation for the London IETF begins in earnest. >>>>> >>>>> This starts a two-week working group last call on: >>>>> >>>>> YANG Tree Diagrams >>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams/ >>>>> >>>>> Please send email to the list indicating your support or concerns. >>>>> >>>>> We are particularly interested in statements of the form: >>>>> >>>>> * I have reviewed this draft and found no issues. >>>>> * I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues: ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> NETMOD WG Chairs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> netmod mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>> . >>>> >> . >> > >_______________________________________________ >netmod mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
