+1 to (2) as preference, followed by (1). I don't think (3) is needed here. The purpose is to make this human-readable and provide readers a good sense of the overall structure. The authoritative specification is still the .yang itself. Providing some guidance for how to represent the tree is good but let's not over-engineer this; I believe retaining some flexibility is good.
--- Alex > -----Original Message----- ... > > Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I can see three > > alternatives: > > > > 1) allow any number of addtional spaces > > 2) allow any number of addtional spaces + define a suggested > > alignment algorithm > > 3) mandate the alignment algorithm > > Definition of symbols should be precise/consistent, so that readers can > consistently interpret tree diagrams. > > I think that flexibility in layout should be OK, but the draft should provide > guideline to ensure the output is readable, and likely to be broadly > consistent > (since consistency aids readability). > > If the IETF data modeling group is trying to specify text output precisely > enough that it can be screen scraped then we may want to consider whether > we are focusing on the right solution ;-) > > In summary, (2) is my preference, followed by (1), followed by (3). > > Thanks, > Rob > > > > > > > /martin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
