Med, Jan, WG,
I have to say that I read the discussion concluding with to NOT change
the current recommendation,
see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/0Q0YiyNi15V-Szzf5awLVh-15_c/
I personally use an ereader (or computer) more than paper and having to
go to a static URL -- probably when I'm off line -- does NOT seem like
something we should be recommending. Furthermore, I'm not sure what our
process has to say about having the HTML include *text content* that is
not in the text version.
Again just my perspective.
What do others think? do they feel strongly that this change from the
current recommendation (in RFC8340) of having long trees in appendixes
is a good or bad idea? (Yes, I'm in the strongly against camp.)
Thanks,
Lou
On 10/1/2024 4:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Lou,
* The comment that triggered the change and companion thread where
this was discussed and changes proposed can be seen at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/-b2HX0XUK49qJB19LHu6MC0D9zc/.
Please note that for html version can still include the long tree,
The tooling may evolve in the future to provide better rendering
of too long trees. This tooling may offer (but not limited to),
unfold trees, control of expanded views, ease navigation among
various levels of a tree, support of hyperlinks, etc. When such a
tooling is available, too long trees can be displayed in the HTML
version of documents that include such trees.
* The candidate change was shared with the WG prior to IETF#119:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/x9aex0PO-KARyg5FtzjLNYrIpLY/
* The thread was open for almost 1 month and a half:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-10&difftype=--html
<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-10&difftype=--html>
Cheers,
Med
*De :* Lou Berger <[email protected]>
*Envoyé :* mardi 1 octobre 2024 00:24
*À :* [email protected]; [email protected]
*Cc :* Kent Watsen <[email protected]>
*Objet :* Re: [netmod] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis
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]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
