Hi, I also have a late comment as contributor on this draft (based on a co-chair discussion).
Looking at the diff relative of Section 3.4, there is mention of folding (search “unfold”). Is this intended to point to RFC 8792 and, if so, should that be clarified? I’m aware that the folding of tree diagrams was discussed on the list recently, but please be aware that the “--tree-line-length=69” parameter to the `pyang` utility is not always able to make the diagram fit into 69-columns. Separately, I notice the document mentions twice "--yang-line-length 69”. I believe that the ‘=‘ character is missing, i.e., it should be "--yang-line-length=69”. Thanks, Kent (and Lou) > On Sep 30, 2024, at 6:23 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 > 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/ >>> >>> 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/ >>> >>> Kent & Lou (as co-chairs) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netmod mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> 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]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
