Alexander Clemm <[email protected]> wrote: > +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.
The last sentence summarizes my personal view. I prefer (1), followed by (2). /martin > --- 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
