Hi Lou,
* Keeping long trees in the main document is really not helpful to digest a module. I also know by experience that this raises comments, including from the IESG. * Keeping long trees that exceed 69 line max in the main or as an appendix is really hard to follow. * There are already RFCs out there do not include long trees, but a note about how to generate it. The narrative text uses small snippets to help readers walk through the model. * Some consistency is needed in how we document our modules + help authors with clear guidance (e.g., characterize what is a long tree) I’m afraid that we can’t simply leave the OLD 8407 as it is. That’s said, I’m only the pen holder and will implement whatever the WG decides here. Cheers, Med De : Lou Berger <[email protected]> Envoyé : mardi 1 octobre 2024 13:37 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) <[email protected]> Cc : Kent Watsen <[email protected]> Objet : Re: [netmod] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis 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]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Hi Lou, 1. 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. 1. The candidate change was shared with the WG prior to IETF#119: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/x9aex0PO-KARyg5FtzjLNYrIpLY/ 2. 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 Cheers, Med De : Lou Berger <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Envoyé : mardi 1 octobre 2024 00:24 À : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc : Kent Watsen <[email protected]><mailto:[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]<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]> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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]
