Speaking as contributor, I agree with Lou. A URL to the tree diagram can be provided, e.g. for a HTML version of the tree diagram that can fold/unfold, in addition to a complete tree diagram included in the Appendix. But removing the tree diagram completely from the document is not a good idea.
Cheers. > On Sep 30, 2024, at 3:23 PM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a late comment as contributor on this draft (based on a co-chair > discussion). > > Looking at the diff relative of section 3.4 to the original document, I think > the idea of referencing a URL versus an appendix is a bad idea. The new text > in question: > > " If the complete tree diagram for a module becomes long (more than 2 pages, > typically), the diagram SHOULD be split into several smaller diagrams (a.k.a > subtrees). For the reader's convenience, a subtree should fit within a page. > If the complete tree diagram is too long (more than 5 pages, typically) even > with groupings unexpanded (Section 2.2 of [RFC8340]), the authors SHOULD NOT > include it in the document. A stable pointer to retrieve the full tree MAY be > included." > > I prefer the original in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8340#section-3.3 > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8340#section-3.3> which > > (a) does not have conformance language and > > (b) keeps the information as available as the document itself by including > the long diagram in an appendix. > > I would like to see this section reverted to the original. > > Authors, > > What is the motivation for the change to URLs and making this a "SHOULD NOT"? > > Thanks, > > Lou > ¶ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-17#section-3.4-1> > > On 9/20/2024 4:03 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > >> This WGLC has successfully closed. The document has moved to the WG State >> "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up”. >> >> Thank you everyone, especially Med, for your diligence in resolving issues! >> >> The next step is the Shepherd write-up. Would anyone in the WG be willing >> to volunteer to help out with it? >> >> Thanks, >> Kent and Lou (chairs) >> >> >>> On May 6, 2024, at 9:57 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> This email begins a two-week WGLC on: >>> >>> Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data >>> Models >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/ >>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/> >>> >>> Please take time to review this draft and post comments by May 20. >>> Favorable comments are especially welcomed. >>> >>> No IPR has been declared for this document: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1LDpkPi_C8cqktc7HXSZgyPDCBE/ >>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1LDpkPi_C8cqktc7HXSZgyPDCBE/> >>> >>> Kent & Lou (as co-chairs) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netmod mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
