+1 to 2
Cheers,
Jeff
On 1/16/18, 07:41, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of m...@tail-f.com> wrote:
Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote:
> On 01/16/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> There is also undocumented alignment space count function before
> >> <type> that pyang uses to align the <type> fields of child data leafs
> >> with common ancestor. If this is specified in the draft the tree
> >> output can be deterministic and for me this is an advantage. This is
> >> currently one of the few underspecified pieces of the tree format so I
> >> had to check pyang implementation in oder to generate same alignment
> >> space counts and binary identical tree output results.
> > I think that we at least should write that there may be more than one
> > space between <opts> and <type>:
> >
> > There may be any number of additional space characters between
> > <opts> and <type>.
> For the sake of the argument (at least having this on the mailing list
> as reference):
>
> <type> should be aligned at a common offset for all sibling nodes
> from the start of <name> by adding trailing spaces. The recommended
> offset is 3 plus the length of the longest node name among all
> sibling nodes
> including those siblings defined under choice and case nodes.
>
> This is what pyang does now. It is not a perfect solution but it
> allows identical output down to the bit.
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
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
